review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
GZSZ is the longest running daily soap in Germany and it's cult! I started watching it from the first day on and I got hooked on it right from the start. Over the years so much has changed, the old characters like Heiko, Elke, Tina, Saskia etc. left, and new ones appeared like Marie, Kai, Cora or John. I have to say that I liked GZSZ better in the years 1995-2000 because today the show focuses too much on the younger characters. My favorite character is Sonja Wiebe because she is the most scheming person that has ever been on that soap and she is also one of the most interesting characters on the show. Tina Bordihn was great as the first Sonja but as Tokessa became the recast of Sonja the character got even better.
|
positive
|
Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film. <br /><br />As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."<br /><br />But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life. <br /><br />Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?<br /><br />Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.<br /><br />So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.<br /><br />Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.<br /><br />So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.<br /><br />But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.<br /><br />The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.<br /><br />One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.<br /><br />Doubtful!
|
negative
|
I, having both read and watched Gone With The Wind, found it very difficult to not compare this movie with the original. Although I thought Scarlett, the novel, was superb, the movie didn't add up. It was a completely different story. Of course, there will never be another Scarlett and Rhett besides Leigh and Gable, but the new actors did a fine job, considering. I loved the way the book and movie wrapped up the story of Gon With the Wind, because after reading it I felt a surge of disappointment because it just stopped and left the readers to wonder what happened. Scarlett finishes the story very well, and Alexandra Ripley did great on the book. I just wish the movie followed the story more, although it is great in itself.
|
positive
|
Titanic has to be one of my all-time favorite movies. It has its problems (what movies don't) but still, it's enjoyable.<br /><br />When I stumble across someone who asks me why I like Titanic, I suppose my first reaction is "wait a minute, you don't?" I know so many people who don't like this movie, and I'm not saying I don't see why. "The love story is too cheesy" well, yes but isn't it enjoyable and moving? All right, the love story between Jack and Rose is very unrealistic, everyone knows that love like this doesn't actually exist. But this is a movie, doesn't everyone enjoy watching a beautiful story that lets us slip slightly into fantasy for a while? The next complaint, DiCaprio and Winslet are terrible actors. Well, OK, in this movie, I agree that they do not perform to their full potentials. However I think it's unfair to say that they are terrible actors. I personally think they are both very talented actors who unfortunately are very famous for a movie that they are not amazing in. But the roles they are given are simple, and the characters seem real enough that you can care about them quite a bit, but I agree with many people that they did not do as well as could have been expected.<br /><br />And finally, if one is going to complain that they don't like this movie because they hate romance, or because they hate history, or tragic movies, then I'm sorry but why on earth did they go and see a movie that is so clearly all of these things. It's like people who complain The Dark Knight is a bad movie because they hate action movies. Simply for being a movie, not because you dislike the genre, this IS a good movie.<br /><br />Well deserving of its Oscars, in particular, Best Cinematography, which I find to be the best I've ever seen in a movie save maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy.<br /><br />I know some of the writing fails, such as the constant screaming of each other's names throughout the movie. The flashback portion of the story can be quite weak at times, but overall it's an amazing achievement in making the Titanic look so real, and the sinking feel so epic.<br /><br />I understand why a lot of people dislike this movie, but for the most part it boils down to them disliking the fundamental idea, such as it being a love story, rather than them thinking the movie in and of itself is poorly constructed.<br /><br />I can tell you that I have read more than five books about the Titanic, including memoirs form the day it happened, and this movie is extremely historically accurate save just a few faults. The only main ones I can find is that the piping should be threaded copper, not steel, and the iceberg looks fairly unrealistic as is the scene where they hit it.<br /><br />I give this movie 10/10, not because I like romance movies, but simply because it's an outstanding cinematic achievement, that leaves one feeling horrified by the realistic adaptation of events.
|
positive
|
I really do not joke when i can honestly submit that this film is not suitable for Sunday night viewing on ITV4.<br /><br />The underground scenes are just awful when London is supposedly under 30ft of water, Robert Carlyles character is drab. The Police commissioners outfit reminds me of something Kate Moss threw up and Nigel Planer looks very VERY old, in fact, I am worried that he may have had suffered a stroke whilst filming.<br /><br />The father of Robert Carlyle who was 'right all along' has obviously been necking too many Ketamin and whilst he has a major part in this awkward journey, he deserved to be killed off way WAY before he was caught pretending to be Kate Winslett (Titanic) whilst dangling over the Thames Barrier.<br /><br />I'm sorry Film lovers but avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.<br /><br />The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.<br /><br />It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.<br /><br />I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical.
|
positive
|
I accidentally caught this in the middle flipping channels. I immediately recognized almost everyone in the cast, "groovy" haircuts aside, and wondered what kind of film could attract such a cast of both past and future stars? Having not seen the original, I guessed it might be the Poseidon Adventure, since it was obviously on a ship in distress. Was I wrong! I cannot for the life of me imagine why any of these great (or promising) actors and actresses would allow their name to be associated with such trash. There is no story, the performances all looked forced, the characters a parody of the usual disaster movie roles that are suddenly brought together by an event, and start pontificating about the real meaning of life at the level of bumper sticker philosophy.<br /><br />It is only worthwhile to see the unusually awful performances by such greats as Sally Field, Michael Caine, et al. They must have needed the money badly. Can we blame the director?
|
negative
|
Naming the absolutely most pathetic piece of crap in cinematic history is not an easy task, candidates being so abundant, but Nemesis 2 has been my personal favorite ever since I saw it. It was so funny we had to rent it again the next day, and again I laughed so hard I was literally rolling on the floor. (This usually only happens when I see Monty Python's "Scott of the Antarctic".)<br /><br />Throughout the whole movie, an overwhelming what-the-heck-feeling firmly grasps the viewer. I'm utterly confounded that this clumsy home video ever made it to production stage. It's supposed to be a sequel, yet has no apparent connection whatsoever with the first film. The hero has the same name, but this time "Alex" is female, although it took us half way into the movie to stop guessing, what with all the muscles and the barbarian-nomad outfit!<br /><br />There is really no plot at all, it's merely a prolonged chase scene, only it's so slow-paced and senseless that calling it a chase scene makes it sound way more interesting than it really is. There is almost no dialogue, which is just as well considering the quality of it, and then the film suddenly just comes to an abrupt end after a blatant action scene with lots of gasoline explosions, without ever really explaining what it was all about. Luckily, it never gets boring, because there's something silly and phony going on at all times!<br /><br />Terrible movies are usually just tedious, but Nemesis 2 is such a perfect mixture of over-seriousness and utter nonintentional wackiness that it's truly entertaining. Rent this film, or buy it even, you won't be disappointed!
|
negative
|
I have seen this film at least 100 times and I am still excited by it, the acting is perfect and the romance between Joe and Jean keeps me on the edge of my seat, plus I still think Bryan Brown is the tops. Brilliant Film.
|
positive
|
This movie has very good acting by virtually all the cast, a gripping story with a chilling ending, great music, and excellent visuals without significant special effects. It is interesting to note though that, like so much science fiction, its predictions for the future don't appear likely to come to pass as early as depicted. That's not to say we're out of the woods yet, but 2022 is now obviously too soon to be in this condition. It shares this failing with a fairly illustrious list of science fiction classics: "1984", "2001: A Space Odyssey (compare its space station with our International Space Station) and Isaac Asimov's "I Robot" (positronic brains were to have been invented in the 1990's).
|
positive
|
I've seen a few bad action movies in my days, but this one's just plain awful. I feel it's a waste of time to even write this but I'll make it short. Why this movie suck? here are 10 reasons: 1. Very amateurly directed and cut. 2. Bad bad bad acting of the whole cast. 3. Silly dialogs and too many clichés. 4. Too many plot holes, a lot of scenes don't add up. 5. Bad photographing (and a lot of continuity issues). 6. Ridiculously bad performance by the lead female actress. 7. Unreliable action scenes (and not too good, either). 8. Even for a Snipes movie, he shows a big lack of acting materials. 9. Outrageous accents (of all the cast). 10. Last, but not least - too many implausible facts, such as a tournament of soccer in the U.S., CIA needing to do background checks to get new information about their employees, a mattress that is explosion proof and so on. In essence - it's a waste of time, it's not funny, not entertaining, not even as a joke - DON"T WATCH IT!!! Seriously, just don't.
|
negative
|
This film follows the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.<br /><br />I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but "Sweet and Lowdown" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.<br /><br />I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but "Sweet and Lowdown" is a major disappointment.
|
negative
|
This movie has everything a fantasy movie should have, romance, clever witticisms, great acting and a fair dose of magic. <br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and was drawn to its original plot (based on the Neil Gaiman novel which I am now looking to read) and colorful characters.<br /><br />One of the most striking things to me actually was how self contained the story is. Unlike so many sci-fi fantasy movies out there right now which leave open-endings and such this was a pure fairy-tale, satisfying in and of itself with no need for a sequel.<br /><br />Original. Fun. Feel-good Fantasy.
|
positive
|
I saw Ray when it first came out. Why? Partly, because of the advertising hype, secondly because I just loved the heck outa Ray Charles's music. But not being around when his biggest things in music and his life happened, I wanted to learn more about the man's life. And in this film, I did. His addiction to drugs was something I didn't know, and the film let us know.<br /><br />But here's the thing, while this was a decent autobiographical film...I cannot say it was a "great" film. I've seen "Malcolm X" and was blown away. Same with "What's Love Got To Do With It" and "Bird". The performances of each of those films was outstanding. I wasn't just drawn into the main characters in those films - who did incredible jobs - but to those around them as well. That helps make a picture to me.<br /><br />I felt that at some parts of this film was shallow and heavy handed for emotional appeal. And yes, I'll admit at certain parts of the film I almost fell asleep. And the film was too long. And the film left out several "other" important details of Ray Charles life that would have made the film flow better. The film got "choppy" to me in certain parts. And the film seemed to end with a whimper, not a bang - certain parts, including the ending played like a tacked on "Lifetime" cable network movie to me. I expect more outa cinema.<br /><br />So -- where does my ambivalence come in? With Jamie Foxx's performance. Overall, he did -- okay. Not Denzel Washington's Malcolm X or Angela Bassett's Tina Turner's spectacular, but...okay.<br /><br />Sorry folks, but to me, there were several points in the film where I saw Jamie Foxx's interpretation of Ray Charles, and in others - thanks to the wonderful camera angles and lighting - he "looked" like Ray Charles. But I paid attention to the ... acting. An actor has to make you believe he IS the character he is playing. Not make a caricature of the character. Did I believe Jamie Foxx was Ray on the screen? Sometimes yes -- sometimes no.<br /><br />Did Jamie Foxx deserve a Golden Globe? You betcha. Does he deserve an Oscar...? Depends on who's he's up against. He's got a few major competitors there, and he might just edge them out. But then again...maybe not. If Jamie Foxx doesn't win, I will not stand up and say "he was robbed". I wont particularly feel that he had been.<br /><br />This was a decent film with decent performances and a decent story. A "great" autobiographical film of the late Ray Charles? No. Somewhere out there, I feel there IS a great film about Ray Charles just waiting to be made, and an actor that will blow you completely away in doing so.
|
positive
|
Claudine was one of the very first movies that gave positive role models for both Black men and women. I appreciated this movie even more as I got older. This movie shows that men didn't always turn away from responsibility. An excellent movie I'd always recommend for anyone who appreciates a good inner city love story.
|
positive
|
This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.
|
positive
|
This person is a so-called entertainer who has to resort to profanity, vulgarity, and slander to try and make others believe he has talent. I have often seen comics use a little of each with effect but when all you can say is laced with it, it is a sign of a drug affected warped mind. Makes me wonder where his twisted and fried brain will be in a few more years of abuse. Poor man!!! I admit I could not watch all of it - too stupid for words. The amazing part of this is that somebody actually believes he is a philosopher!!! No wonder self respect and decency are dwindling and perversity is rising. Could it be that the UFC might have been a factor in his deadened brain?
|
negative
|
Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves return as the two dopes from San Dimas who get sent on another trip of a lifetime as someone from the future feels exactly the opposite the way it was presented in the first movie.<br /><br />The only difference is that their trip is "somewhere" between Heaven and Hell and ends up being both. When they meet the Grim Reaper, they get the chance of an after-lifetime to play him for a chance to return and stop two evil robots from ruining what future they were supposed to have. Besides playing roles they have...er...perfected, they also play (and revive a couple of extra sales in the process) some classic games (I even have my original copy of Battleship in the closet).<br /><br />The reason I liked this movie better than the original is because it deals with "what it might be like" instead of "what was." Without spoiling the movie, I can't give you anymore information about this (I guess you'll just have to watch them both and decide for yourself! 8 out of 10 stars.
|
positive
|
This is the most messed up entry on IMDb that I've yet to stumble across. All the previous reviewers act like this is the movie. This is NOT the movie. Rather it's merely a featurette that's an extra on the DVD of the movie "The One" It also nowhere near being the 90 minutes that it's listed here as. In actuality it's barely over 13 minutes of how cool Jet Li can do martial arts. and his reflections on the movie. So yeah this IMDb entry is quite a bit fubar. Don't listen to any of the other reviews as they are ALL wrong. You can trust me, because I never feed you, dear reader, BS.<br /><br />and that's the truth. i guess u can say that i'm "the One" Reviewer that matters.
|
negative
|
Kudos to Baxley's DP for making this look like a real movie, the first time that's happened in this series (with the notable exception of the F/X scenes). In moving closer to movie production values, however, it lost most of the entertainment value of the first two. They were very much in the 'so bad they're good' category of horrendous film entertainment. Can an argument be made though that the 'believers' were simply trying to make a generic action film with praying in it? There are so many times in the film where they discard their own belief system as to be annoying. If everything that happens is according to God's will and they are simply his instruments, than the people who are infected with the virus have that happen as a part of his plan, right? Apply that to every situation where someone of faith doesn't submit to God's will, and you get a fairly hypocritical little movie from the director of 'Action Jackson'.
|
negative
|
Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible. <br /><br />I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.<br /><br />And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch "Shark rosso nell'oceano" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior "Jaws" (as if you didn't know).<br /><br />Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).<br /><br />Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the "Jaws" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.<br /><br />This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.<br /><br />Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the "Bad Theatre" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on "Saturday Night Live"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.<br /><br />Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this "horror" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.<br /><br />No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as "Shark rosso nell'oceano"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?<br /><br />
|
negative
|
WOW. One of the greatest movies I have EVER - EVER seen.<br /><br />Absolutely LOVED it! Before the opening credits were done I was glued to the screen.<br /><br />It's a Sci-Fi thriller - AND edge of your seat Whodunnit. Incredible.<br /><br />I wish'd it would never end.<br /><br />Lucy Liu is a throwaway role. Anyone could have played it. The lead actor, Jeremy Northram was the perfect geeky guy. <br /><br />This movie appeals to me who loved War Games, Sneakers, and Track Down.<br /><br />Incredible!<br /><br />8-22-06. Walt D in LV
|
positive
|
Fans of Euro-horror flicks - Portland's video/DVD store Movie Madness has a whole section devoted to this genre - can't afford to miss Sergio Martino's gut-busting "L'isola degli uomini pesce" (called "Screamers" in the United States). Here's the lowdown: some shipwreck survivors land on an uncharted Caribbean island in 1891. The island is inhabited by a landowner, a scientist (Joseph Cotten) and his daughter (Barbara Bach). Sure enough, it turns out that the landowner is making the scientist create a race of fish-men. And while the fish-men remain calm as long as they can drink their potion, they get nasty otherwise.<br /><br />This movie is sort of a mixture of genres: Euro-horror, swashbuckling, voodoo, and maybe a little bit of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". But it's mostly an excuse to have the fish-men disembowel trespassers; ya gotta love that! I wouldn't be surprised if the Euro-horror genre gave Quentin Tarantino some of his ideas for "Grindhouse". After all, the European horror directors have no scruples about what they show. This is one that you're sure to like.<br /><br />So Joseph Cotten is the only cast member from an Alfred Hitchcock movie (I mean "Shadow of a Doubt") who later co-starred with Ringo Starr's soon-to-be wife and Audrey Hepburn's ex (by whom I mean Mel Ferrer) in an Italian horror flick. The things that we see in life...
|
positive
|
"Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is a sort of "Harper Valley P.T.A." with touches of the supernatural. Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) walks off her job as television horror movie hostess after the new station's owner gets fresh with her. She's now relying on a Las Vegas show to carry her through, but learns she needs to come up with more money to get the show started. Things look hopeless to raise that money until she receives notice of her aunt's death, which then takes Elvira to Massachusetts for the reading of the will. A house in need of repairs, a dog, and a cookbook are all that is left to her by her aunt, and again it seems Elvira is having trouble coming up with the money for the Las Vegas show. The adults of the small and narrow minded town make things worse by making things more difficult for Elvira. Only the local hunk (Daniel Greene), and a group of teenagers will befriend her. Elvira's Uncle "Vinnie" (W. Morgan Sheppard), presses to make a deal with Elvira for the cookbook, but Elvira soon learns of her powerful heritage that includes spellcasting, and a couple very effective casseroles. Elvira no longer wants to sell the cookbook to her uncle, but he is determined to get his hands on it knowing of its power. Elvira then faces being burned at the stake on the town's old charge of witchcraft, and the showdown between her and her uncle. The plot is pretty simple, but the humor and well developed characters keep it moving at a nice pace. "Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark" is full of cute, gross, bawdy, and clever humor carried through by the many sight gags, puns, props, songs, and parodies. The film's touches of the occult make this one of the best horror parodies ever made. It is a well made film with terrific acting by all performers; including Edie McClurg, and Jeff Conaway (of "Grease.") There are also nice special effects. Many people (including myself) wondered if the Elvira character could carry a feature film, and the answer is delightfully, YES!
|
positive
|
This is what movies should aspire to. Funny without being totally stupid, a little sexy without having every female in the cast show her boobs, biting without resorting to 'f-bombs' every line. I've been seeing Justin Long pop up in a lot of films over the past few years, I figured with the right role he could break out. (Mac commercials not withstanding.) This film just might put him on a fast track to the A list. The rest of the cast also did their jobs perfectly, this is an excellent little film with a nice message. (But you don't need to buy the message to have a good time.) Lewis Black is, as usual, hilarious, and Blake Lively is a fresh faced beauty. <br /><br />Take a couple hours and see this film, they will not have been wasted.
|
positive
|
Saw this at the video store and thought I'd give it a try. Sounded like a good story and the cover looked good. That was it. The characters looked good, and the actor who played "Noel", was the most convincing, though he didn't have any heavy time in the movie. I find it really hard to give a movie a bad rating, but this is one, in a minute number, that gets it my book. As the movie went along I kept wanting it to get better but to no avail. Asthetically, it was good. The sound and lighting was good, but the acting in this film killed it for me. It was like watching a low grade soap opera. I just kept saying, "I can't believe they released this move like this". I paused several times out of sheer unbelief that the acting was that bad. There's so much I want to say but I'll just say this, everything else, for the most part, was good, it was the acting, as a final cut, that really did this film in.
|
negative
|
THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less. <br /><br />In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a result
they love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?
|
negative
|
this is an alright show to watch, its not the best nor the worst. I've watched it for a long time and i don't like any of the new stuff. This show has changed into some teen trash and is living much differently. I dislike that crap..i have no IQ why they completely changed the theme of this show. The first season was really enjoyable to watch and is was partly amusing. The 2nd season is just out of this world dumb. I seriously don't know why the writers/directors changed this show up. many more people liked the 1st season better than the 2nd and 3rd. I will only watch the first season of this show from now on, whenever i see a new episode, ill change the f*ckin channel...ya heard me! It gets a 3/10 because i somewhat enjoyed the 1st season but hated the 2nd and 3rd
|
negative
|
"Paula, I may be a bitch, but I'll never be a butch!" <br /><br />A hilarious line in an otherwise rather tiresome skin flick which features a pretty honey in Stacey Walker, but that's about all. This gal's a real tease who lures her boyfriends, co-workers and even her lesbian roommate Paula into her bedroom, but then turns into a whack job who cries "rape" and calls for the police! <br /><br />The schizophrenic personality of this certified c**t is interesting for maybe a little while, but this story ultimately turns into a real repetitive one-note affair. At least the ending is worth the wait, for those who will still care by that time.
|
negative
|
This movie is unworthy of the Omen title. It is so bad that it has actually damaged the classic nature of the first three. It never should have been made, they ought to change the title.<br /><br />They don't even spell Damien Thorn's NAME correctly!!!! And there are no daggers, the most important element of all the Omen films. Pull it from the shelves and burn it.
|
negative
|
I really enjoyed The Patriot. This movie had less violence and was based on a real life threat that could inevitably destroy our civilization. One line in the movie from wesley mclaren (seagal) stuck out in my mind to be very true of our society, "western medicine is in the practice of prolonging illness and I am in the business of curing it."<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.<br /><br />In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.
|
negative
|
My son, an avid skateboarder, sat me down and made me watch this with him. As I love documentaries, it didn't take a whole lot of pressure on his part. The whole amazing story of it all - a bunch of dirt-poor kids drift together and end up creating something revolutionary out of thin air - well, more out of some wood, wheels and lack of waves to surf - it just floored me. It still does. I didn't think I would enjoy it the way I did, nor did I think I would tear up watching Stacey Peralta tear up over the fate of Jay Adams. And just watching Jay Adams himself.....the sheer genius of the kid skating and the shrug of the adult remembering. I watched it again last night for what has to be the 10th time and I still get goosebumps watching him fly down the hill with Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" playing in the background. And I teared up, again. Not too many movies have the same impact with me after several viewings. Brilliant.
|
positive
|
Positively ridiculous film.<br /><br />If Doris Roberts, Shirley Jones and Shirley Knight persist in these kinds of films, they can submit their retirement papers and collect social security full-time.<br /><br />While the idea that a 35 year old swinger, who works on video games, loses his apartment and his forced to move in with Grandma Roberts and borders Jones and Knight, this is foolishly dealt with. Imagine the 3 bags getting high on stuff that grandson Alex has left in their home and Jones going to bed with someone who may qualify as her grandson!<br /><br />The video game sequences are as foolish as the rest of the film. The assortment of characters that Alex works with is beyond belief as he enjoys his weed habit along with the others.<br /><br />Terrible best describes this miserable film.
|
negative
|
And believe me that's a pretty stunning accomplishment. Take "Jolly Roger: Massacre at Cutter's Cove," change the killer from a pirate to a prospector, change his obsession from buried treasure to old gold, and his color from puke green to deep blue. You now have "Miner's Massacre." The problem is, at least "Jolly Roger" was entertaining enough -- albeit in a so-bad-it's-good way -- to keep you watching it for the whole two hours. There's no strip-joint-murder scene or any bizarre killings. I can't tell you how many times I lost interest in "Miner's Massacre" and started doing dishes or cleaning around the condo. And, the ending is absolutely silly. The 49er dude just randomly re-appears out of nowhere to kill the local sheriff, while the lead actor and actress are sitting in the sheriff's cruiser, screaming. A truly horrible movie.
|
negative
|
A real classic, ten out of ten! Every actor is perfect, the screenplay is a haunting succession of suspenseful scenes. Scenes in car and scenes in the mountains are breathtaking. Wonder if this film is already out in DVD, because it must be seen in Widescreen version. Saw this film in the late fifties, maybe three or four times, and never since then forgot it.I remember it was one of the first Warner like cinemas cope features, process called Warnerscope which gave a very neat cinematography. Shelley Winters and Jack Palance deserved an Oscar for their performances.The only thing I could criticize is not having been directed by someone like, say Nicholas Ray, to increase its rhythm and tension.
|
positive
|
I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem.
|
positive
|
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
|
negative
|
Bugs life is a good film. But to me, it doesn't really compare to movies like Toy story and stuff. Don't get me wrong, I liked this movie, but it wasn't as good as Toy story. The film has the visuals, the laughs, and others that Toy story had. But the film didn't feel quite as... I don't know, but I thought it was still a pretty good film. <br /><br />A bugs life... I don't want to say this, is a film that I don't remember. I saw it years ago. Of course, I haven't seen Toy story in years, but I still remember it. I shouldn't have reviewed this film, but I am. I am giving it a thumbs up, though it's not exactly the best work Pixar has done.<br /><br />A bug's life:***/****
|
positive
|
According to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.
|
negative
|
This version of the Charles Dickens novel features George C Scott as the Scrooge. Fine casting, especially the choice of Scott, who plays the role to the hilt..a fine cast supports him in the very good adaption. A Modern day holiday classic on a scale of one to ten..9
|
positive
|
Despite the fact that he worked for the worst government of the 20th century, Erwin Rommel is generally well-regarded by historians and World War II buffs as a gentleman, a soldier's soldier, and a brilliant tactician in the field of mechanized warfare. If only Hitler had given him the troops and materiel he had desired in Africa, the argument goes, things would have gone very differently. And that's probably true. Rommel was, in fact, a military genius, and by all accounts an upstanding, honest man.<br /><br />But this film goes out of its way to portray him as a near-saint. He does his job, trying to win the war for Hitler, but constantly the Fuhrer interferes and gives him ridiculous orders, which Rommel (James Mason) expresses amazement with but rarely actually questions and never, ever disobeys. Only when it's patently obvious that Hitler is leading Germany to ruin does Rommel think of treason against him; this dilemma plays out as the main theme of the film, a good man in bad circumstances trying to do the right thing.<br /><br />Mason is fine as Rommel, but it's hardly a memorable performance along the lines of, say, George C. Scott as Patton. Of course, Rommel wasn't as colorful as Patton, but this film is so intent on making him look like a decent human being that it forgets to make him interesting. He occasionally lapses into some warmth when with his wife Lucie (a young Jessica Tandy, well-cast), but usually Mason is called upon to give a stiff British performance as if the Brits were trying to claim Rommel for themselves (though in all fairness all the Nazis have English accents except Hitler).<br /><br />Done on the cheap, with any battle scenes swiping stock footage, and the beaches of southern California doubling for Tunisia, there's nothing to particularly recommend this film. A remake could be interesting (I'd pick Ed Harris only because of a slight physical resemblance and, well, Harris can act) were it spiced up a little, but this movie mostly demonstrated to me how much more demanding we as viewers have become in the last fifty years; a biography this bland would never cut it any more.
|
negative
|
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs
|
negative
|
I saw this movie when it was broadcast on television in February of 1983. I was in the hospital, having just given birth to my first and only child. I'll refrain from telling you the extent to which I was moved. Suffice it to say that the memory of the movie has remained with me to this day, almost 23 years later. I hope I can find a copy of this movie, if such a thing was ever made. This movie should be remembered fondly by anyone who ever saw it. However, I must admit that the fact it remains somewhat obscure is just fine by me. This way, it will always be a small secret to me and those who were also moved by it. I never saw Ms. Margaret perform a better part. Nor have I ever seen her in a more convincing role. I will forever respect her just for accepting such a lovely part.
|
positive
|
While Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.<br /><br />Vidor's "War and Peace" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is "awful".<br /><br />Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going.
|
negative
|
Watched Uzumaki last night and right away was reminded of two early Peter Weir films from Australia, The Last Wave and Picnic At Hanging Rock. They were films loaded with atmosphere but short on actual horror. Uzumaki, to me, seems clearly influenced by these films. It has a number of fairly mundane scenes that become more portentous the deeper you are sucked in by the film. It also has more scenes of outright horror and although I don't think the film actually measures up to those two films it is well worth the time of most thoughtful fans of the unusual (not necessarily horror). 7 out of 10 seems fair but I must say that years after seeing The Last Wave the film still stays with me, and it is precisely Picnic At Hanging Rock's unresolved ending that makes it so haunting. p.s. All the people criticizing the acting... pullleasse...in this genre?
|
positive
|
This film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.
|
negative
|
Titanic directed by James Cameron presents a fictional love story on the historical setting of the Titanic. The plot is simple, noncomplicated, or not for those who love plots that twist and turn and keep you in suspense. The end of the movie can be figured out within minutes of the start of the film, but the love story is an interesting one, however. Kate Winslett is wonderful as Rose, an aristocratic young lady betrothed by Cal (Billy Zane). Early on the voyage Rose meets Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio), a lower class artist on his way to America after winning his ticket aboard Titanic in a poker game. If he wants something, he goes and gets it unlike the upper class who are so concerned with their social worries. The two fall in love and the audience sees the sinking of the Titanic primarily through their eyes.<br /><br />The movie begins in modern times with the exploration of the wreck by a group searching for treasures, that sunk with the Titanic, which has recently occurred. One of the survivors of the Titanic, Rose DeWitt Bukater, who had heard of the exploration of the wreck on television and is flown to the boat where the search is being led from to tell of what she remembers to help the search. She gets to telling her memory of the one and only voyage of the Titanic. With this, the scene shifts to Southhampton, Ireland where the Titanic set sail from on April 10, 1912 as all the passengers are boarding. After another stop on the Irish coast Titanic went out to see on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic bound for New York. Historically the first few days of the voyage went by uneventful, but the fictional plot of the story is developed during this time as Rose sees the hopeless entrapement of an engagement that she is in to the wealthy Cal Hockley and falls in love with third class passenger, Jack Dawson. Captain Smith alledgedly as shown in the movie was urged by the White Star Line Director to increase the speed of the ship so they would make the newspaper headlines and receive extra publicity by arriving in New York on Thursday night and not on Friday morning as planned. Smith then ordered the fateful decision going against his thirty-two years of experience to stretch the Titanic's legs out to full speed. The Titanic had reports that the waters in the Atlantic they were sailing in were full of icebergs, but they ignored these warnings and proceeded at full speed as shown in the movie. On April 15, 1912 at 11:39, an iceberg was sighted. They attempted to shut off the engines and turn the ship out of the path of the iceberg but there was not enough time and the ship hit the iceberg on the starboard side as depicted in the film. The portrayal of the many small holes in the side of the ship and not one large gash along the side is accurate. The crew of Titanic sent out distress calls and set off distress rockets as shown until 2:18 when the lights finally failed. The lights of the California were spotted six miles away but they failed to realize what was going on and did not respond to Titanic's many pleas for help. The California had tried earlier in the day to warn Titanic of the severe ice that had caused them to stop their trip but Titanic had brushed them off causing the California to turn off its radio and leave the Titanic on its own. The first class women and children were the first as depicted to be put into the twenty lifeboats that were on the ship. Overwhelmingly the third class passengers suffered the most amount of deaths of any class and the crew was hit hard in this tragedy too. The word of White Star Line employees and first class passengers was believed over that of second and third class passengers when authorities were trying to gain information of the sinking. Also, the metal that was used to build the Titanic has been found in recent years under conditions of severe cold, which were experienced the night Titanic sank to be extremely brittle. Overall, the basic plot is very accurate in its portayal of the events and the times at which these events took place on the Titanic.<br /><br />Many of the characters in the story were not real and created simply for the purpose of the movie or as composite characters to represent possible characteristics and ideas of people on the ship. The core group of Rose, Jack, Cal, and Rose's mother all were fictional characters added into the story as they represent different groups of people from the time. Yet many characters such as the Unsinkable Molly Brown; Captain Edward Smith; the ship designer, Thomas Andrew; the White Star Line Representative, Bruce Ismay; and all of the Titanic's officers were real. The maiden voyage was going to be Captain Edward Smith's last voyage anyway as he planned to retire afterwards. He had been a part of the White Star Line since 1880 where he worked his way up to his status as the Millionaire's Captain when the Titanic sunk. The portrayals of the officers is accurate as only four survived the tragedy except for the officer who threatened to kill all of the passengers of the ship with his pistol. He is on record as acting heroicly and was misportrayed to the point that James Cameron apologized and evoked a monument in his honor in the officer's former Canadian hometown. As shown in the movie there was a language problem between the crew and many of the lower-class passengers from non-English speaking nations. In addition, Officer Lowe was the only officer who came back in the lifeboat as depicted. The old people shown in their bed as the water came in their room were based on the Strauss'. Not wanting to leave her husband's side Mrs. Strauss refused to get in her lifeboat and died with her husband on the Titanic. Furthermore, Mr. Goggenheim who was shown sipping his brandy and smoking a cigar reportedly did go out like this dressed in his best. The richest man on the ship, John Jacob Astor, who owned most of Manhattan died nonetheless as well, but his much younger wife was saved in a lifeboat. In addition, Molly Brown was saved and later had medals made up for the crew of the Carpethia that picked the survivors of Titanic up from the water. Her ticket on the Titanic had cost over four-thousand dollars and by the end of her life she ended up broke. All of the interiors of the ship were masterfully replacated down to the last pieces of china and silverware. The gymnasium, which is hardly seen is recreated perfectly with all of the machines reproduced to match those seen in old photographs. The wonderful outfits and costuming were an excellent re-creation of the Post-Victorian era of 1912. The rich at this time practically ruled everything, as the women's suffrage movement had not quite gotten moving yet. Women during this time often married for financial security as Rose was considering doing and normally took a back seast status to their husbands as Cal wished for Rose to do. The rich did not take well to `new money' such as Molly Brown as depicted. Everything of the time was very formal. Women had to be escorted to dinner by a male figure as seen with in the dining scenes. Smoking was not very common among women of the time but holders of cigarettes, which were just coming in at the time were used as seen with Rose in the movie. Men of the time generally smoked cigars not cigarettes. Women were constained physically by their corsets and socially by society. Although James Cameron had no background in historical films he brought in experts of Titanic coupled with two years spent cross-referencing the history of the Titanic and few liberties were taken. The beautiful cinematography and special effects also helped to make the film even more breathtaking.<br /><br />A recognizable message can be seen in the movie Titanic as the people on the ship had about three hours to contemplate their demise. The director, James Cameron, shows the various reactions to this time of crisis in people's lives. Everyone reacts differently and he gets you to think of how you might have reacted had you been in that situation on the Titanic on that fateful night. In addition, this film is a reflection of the 1990's when it was produced as it gives a look into the wreck of the Titanic. Only in the past fifteen years has the site of the actual Titanic been found and explored. This movie was able to give us a deeper look into a disaster that many would not have viewed. However, the moral question of whether people today should be taking treasures from the wreck of an underwater graveyard is posed. There have been attempts to stop treasure seeking missions such as the one portrayed in Titanic but all have failed. As it stands today anyone can make a voyage to the Titanic and take whatever valuables they as portrayed in the film showing the general values of our time on this matter.<br /><br />Technically the film is very well done. To get footage of the wreck at the bottom of the ocean it took twelve dives to get all of the footage needed for the movie. In addition, a special camera had to be created to withstand the intense pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Cameron did not plan on using the probe to go as far inside Titanic as anyone has in the 88 years since the ship sunk but it worked out that this provided an unique perspective into the ship. Furthermore, throughout the film fade ins and outs from the wreck of Titanic to the scene of Titanic during its actual voyage. This shift between the modern scene to the past scene during the voyage works as an excellent transition that makes the story easy to follow in aclear manner. At the very beginning of the movie a septune recreation is used to recreate the scene when the actual people left the European coast on Titanic giving it distinction from the rest of the events of the film.<br /><br />Titanic plays almost like a historical biography and is like a work of art, a true epic. Like most history novels, we know the ending, but it doesn't take away from the wonderful treats that can be found in this picture. Certain aspects of this film are Academy Award material including costuming, sound, cintematography, and editing. If you like interesting characters that will give you an insight into the life of characters in the early 1900's and how they face disaster, then this movie definitely is for you.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.
|
negative
|
I always knew the day was coming. We all knew. There's only so much oil in the ground, and one day we'll run short. But isn't there supposed to be enough coal to use instead? And wind power, or something. Things for future generations to worry about.<br /><br />Then this documentary hit me smack between the eyes. Oil makes the fertilizer that is the reason for the first time in world history practically no one lives on farms. When the inevitable oil shortages hit, a lot of things -- air travel, many drugs, plastics, life in the suburbs -- will become impossible. But the craziest insight from the documentary is this: oil gives us so much energy with so little effort, that without it our lives must change. Even if substitutes and conservation are implemented immediately, at best they'll smooth our landing into a strange post-oil world which (the documentary claims) could be starting NOW.<br /><br />Despite its gloomy message, the documentary is often highly entertaining. It contains fabulous historical footage (sober images of dark urban factories, and campy funny stuff from the 1950's) which reminds us of why we moved to the suburbs in the first place. It also offers hope that a massive effort started now could both ease our transition from oil and make the world a better place.<br /><br />My only complaint about the documentary is that it does not spend time on the mystery of why we are finding this stuff out now. How can this be a big emergency all of a sudden? We knew in the 1970s we should be preparing for a post-oil world -- and we started to prepare with alternative energy research and smaller cars. If our failure to follow through on President Jimmy Carter's initiatives 25 years ago has doomed us to a hard landing in a post-oil world, why was no one shouting about it on soapboxes?<br /><br />In the end I found the documentary highly persuasive; and it left me with the terrible chill of being dragged out of a very lovely dream. This is must viewing for everyone not afraid to face a very likely near future that we still have time to do something about.<br /><br />- Charles
|
positive
|
Wow, this film had a huge impact on me, it moved me,. It is an amazing story about a girl in Cambodia who is sold into the sex trade. I can not stop thinking about the fate of the little girl named Holly. The setting of the film is realistic, The film was an eye opener, I can not imagine anyone walking away from it with out wanting to help make a change with this horrifying problem that exsists.<br /><br />The content of the film was very very moving. It was one of the best films that I have seen this year. The<br /><br />girl who plays Holly does a fantastic job with her character. Ron Livinston gives a fantastic performance. The film moved me to tears, It tells an important message that needs to be heard worldwide. Everyone should go see this film. I think this film will make a difference, I loved it!
|
positive
|
I loved This Movie. When I saw it on Febuary 3rd I knew I had to buy It!!! It comes out to buy on July 24th!!! It has cool deaths scenes, Hot girls, great cast, good story , good acting. Great Slasher Film. the Movies is about some serial killer killing off four girls. SEE this movies
|
positive
|
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.
|
negative
|
True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.<br /><br />Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.<br /><br />The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.<br /><br />The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.<br /><br />The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.<br /><br />The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.<br /><br />Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.<br /><br />Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.<br /><br />Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0.
|
negative
|
Ronald Reagan and a bunch of US soldiers in a North Korean POW camp. They are tortured... We learn North Korean Communists are bad people... We learn Americans' beards grow very slowly during days of torture...<br /><br />I tried to suppress it, but I finally burst out laughing at this movie. It was the scene when Mr. Reagan comes out from telling the Communists he wants to be on their side. Then, he asks for a bottle of brandy. Next, acting stone-cold sober, he takes a drunken companion, Dewey Martin, to get sulfur to cure Mr. Martin's hangover. Of course, the North Korean communist guard is as dumb as they come. So, the drunk distracts the guard while Reagan goes over to get something from a drawer, which is next to a bunch of empty boxes. I'm sure he boxes were supposed to contain something; but, of course, Reagan causes them to shake enough to reveal they are empty. Ya gotta laugh! I think "Prisoner of War" will appeal mainly to family and friends of those who worked on it - otherwise, it's wasteful. <br /><br />* Prisoner of War (1954) Andrew Marton ~ Ronald Reagan, Steve Forrest, Dewey Martin
|
negative
|
After a meteorite lands in "Boston" (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problemsthe acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting "Boston police" or "Boston gas company" on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote/directed the weak 1995 monster movie "Grim", clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're "horrified" screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The "explosion" of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!<br /><br />To sum the film up, "Breeders" is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.<br /><br />1.5/10.
|
negative
|
'Capital City' fans rejoice! This first season of this series is now available from Network DVD and I've recently got my copy! Although very much an ensemble piece of key 'maverick' trading floor characters 'CAPITAL CITY' does present us with various moments through both its first and second season when each member of the team plays a significant part in a particular central or peripheral plot line. The cultural mix (English, Irish, American, German, Polish) of Head Trader Wendy Foley's (played by Joanna Phillips-Lane) group of staff is balanced with their own distinctive mannerisms, interests and personalities which helps to make the rather unfamiliar and, to most people, seemingly sterile subject of financial trading reasonably engaging through the engaging performances of the cast. In fact this seemingly dynamic young team of employees is in direct contrast to the rather staid and old-fashioned senior management of Shane Longman as represented by Lee Wolf (Richard Le Parmentier) and James Farrell (Denys Hawthorne). I suspect that such an unconventional way of working as employed by Wendy's team would not have become a reality had it not been for youthful reclusive 'free spirit' Peter Longman inheriting his thirty per cent stock in the company from his father and allowed a more trendy, relaxed modern way of business become a reality. To a certain degree Wendy's (I am led to believe) immediate supervisor Leonard Ansen (John Bowe) follows the establishment in the traditional manner of running the company however his fondness for Wendy rather sees him occupying the 'middle ground' on most occasions. The main interest in the series, I believe, stems from the simmering romantic attraction between Douglas Hodge's Declan and the cool self-assured blonde haired German trader Michelle Hauptmann (played by Trevyn McDowell) which had viewers continually wondering if the situation between these two colleagues would develop beyond the close friendship/fondness that they undoubted have.<br /><br />Looking forward to browsing through this title, and hopefully the second season of thirteen won't be too far away!
|
positive
|
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br />
|
negative
|
I had the opportunity to see this film debut at the Appalachian Film Festival, in which it won an award for Best Picture. This film is brilliantly done, with an excellent cast that works well as an ensemble. My favorite performances were from Youssef Kerkour, Justin Lane , and Adam Jones. Also, there are some great effects with dragonflies and cockroaches, that I was surprised to find out that this film was done on a small budget. The writer-director Adam Jones, who I believe also won an award for his writing, does an excellent job with direction. The audience loved this movie. Cross Eyed will keep you laughing throughout the movie. Definitely a must see.
|
positive
|
How can any of you call this propaganda a family film. This is nothing but a PC, insensitive insult to small-town churchgoers. The film portrays a woman as the great white savior of some small Midwestern town, and everyone else in the town (mostly men) are just mere damsels in distress, incapable of honor, who can't fend for themselves and have to rely on the main character for redemption. This film is just some love affair that the producer has with some undisciplined, arrogant, pushy little squirt, who he expects the audience to admire.<br /><br />The person who made this movie probably spent his whole life in a seeker-sensitive church, and had the freedom to dump garbage on small church members as wacky lunatics and not the majority. The same people who give money to the Salvation Army at Christmastime, collecting donations to help missionaries, the poor and the homeless, singing, fellow-shipping, and making friends with each other. What is wrong with this humble group that offends these self-righteous traitors? Most Christians in this world would step in front of a train and give their lives for any person in trouble, even if they disagree with them. Most Christians wouldn't mind if the pastor, or some church worker, of some church took of his or her coat (or outer shirt). They would not condemn her. This film is ridiculous!
|
negative
|
If you like cars you will love this film!<br /><br />There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....<br /><br />There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!<br /><br />When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought "...sweeet.", but then i thought "...naaaa you suck!" but then finally after watching the film i realised "...yep he suck's!".Only joking he plays the role very well.<br /><br />I'll end this unusual review by saying "If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say "Poor Criminal." I say: "Poor us."<br /><br />p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice!
|
positive
|
I am afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like ....."LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58" you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.<br /><br />DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!!
|
positive
|
Okay, enough. Every time I think I've seen a film that is so misbegotten, so bad in every way that I think that no one could possibly find something to praise, I just come to the IMDb where I'm greeted with the usual inane "Undiscovered masterpiece" "GREAT film" - I mean, honestly, what movie are you people watching, because it's certainly not the mess I just watched on the new Fox/MGM/UA DVD. There are about three amusing lines, and a plot that gives incoherence a new meaning. And then, after ninety-three interminable minutes, it just stops and the end credits begin. Then there's another scene. The DVD is fairly wretched, which suits the film. The source material is almost completely faded to an ugly brown. It's hard to imagine this film followed Get Carter. The critics and the public got this one right back then - it was lambasted and a box-office disaster, and rightfully so. But you pundits keep on trying. And I'll keep on trying to find a movie that DOESN'T have SOMEONE who raves about it.
|
negative
|
"The Lion King" is without a doubt my favorite Disney movie of all time, so I figured maybe I should give the sequels a chance and I did. Lion King 1 1/2 was pretty good and had it's good laughs and fun with Timon and Pumba. Only problem, I feel sometimes no explanations are needed because they can create plot holes and just the feeling of wanting your own explanation. Well, I would highly recommend this movie for lion King fans or just a night with the family. It's a fun flick with the same laughs and lovable characters as the first. So, hopefully, I'll get the same with the third installment to the Lion King series. Sit back and just think Hakuna Matata! It means no worries! <br /><br />8/10
|
positive
|
This film is a work of pure class from start to finish, for a moment forget the famous 28 minute no dialog heist, forget that it's set in Paris and forget it's Noir. The film itself, the premise and the execution make this a pure gold experience.. it's sharp intelligent and thought through in great detail, just like the heist itself. It portrays real characters that are not only believable but whom you empathize with. It's a film that doesn't glamorize the notion of a robbery but shows it for what it is.. theft. It shows that a heist is hard work and ultimately not worth doing. Now all things considered put on top of that a daring 28 minute sequence with not a word spoken and set in gorgeous Paris with truly great attention to detail and fantastic cinematography and that last scene ...when you look up and see those trees... wonderful use of raw and basic filming techniques... it is a master piece in my view and I'm glad to have seen it.
|
positive
|
Clint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear) <br /><br />My Grade: D-
|
negative
|
Sigh
the stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. "Mind Ripper" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame cliché you can think off (including the estranged father/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as "The Hills Have Eyes part 3". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!
|
negative
|
Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.<br /><br />But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.<br /><br />McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.<br /><br />Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.<br /><br />Grade: D/D-
|
negative
|
A reasonable effort is summary for this film. A good sixties film but lacking any sense of achievement. Maggie Smith gave a decent performance which was believable enough but not as good as she could have given, other actors were just dreadful! A terrible portrayal. It wasn't very funny and so it didn't really achieve its genres as it wasn't particularly funny and it wasn't dramatic. The only genre achieved to a satisfactory level was romance. Target Audiences were not hit and the movie sent out confusing messages. A very basic plot and a very basic storyline were not pulled off or performed at all well and people were left confused as to why the film wasn't as good and who the target audiences were etc. However Maggie was quite good and the storyline was alright with moments of capability.<br /><br />4.
|
negative
|
This is an entertaining look at the Gospel as presented by Johnny Cash (adorned in black, of course) who sings a lot and narrates a bit also. If you like Johnny Cash, this film is quite enjoyable. Also note the blonde depiction of Jesus in this work...just for fun, try to think of five Jewish men who have blonde hair...? Anyway, its a fun presentation of the greatest and most important story of all.
|
positive
|
Everything Is Illuminated A young Jewish American searches for the woman that helped his grandfather escape Nazi persecution while embarking on a cross-European tour with some unlikely associates.<br /><br />Liev Schreiber makes his directorial debut with a playful angst usually associated with his acting ethos. When successful actors decide to sit in the director's chair, we usually get a biographical glimpse at the souls beneath the acting mask- Check. We usually get a mishmash of genres- Check. But what we normally do not get is an insightful original film which is credible, intelligent and moving.<br /><br />Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, an inquisitive young boy who collects pieces of life as he goes. He is on a mission to find a woman in a photograph. The sepia picture bears his grandfather (an uncanny resemblance to him) and the woman. To aid his journey he enlists the help of travel guides that comprise of a Hip-Hop loving break-dancer, Alex (Eugene Hutz), his apathetic and perma-vexed grandfather (Boris Leskin) and his dog- Sammy Davis Junior Jr! What ensues is essentially a comedy. There is an un-patronisingly simple introduction with voice-overs. Alex's is especially funny as he educates his younger brother on the year 1969, proving how popular he is with the chicks and break-dancing thus setting him up as Jonathan's antithesis.<br /><br />Schreiber begins to break down the characters as they progress and the comedy acts as an intentional veil to what is a story about three people linked to the holocaust who do not really know themselves. All three hold the film with tenderness and authenticity something Schreiber was unlikely to get wrong and as enchanting and fantastical as the film is, the horrors that are allowed to crack through, i.e. the past are presented in an almost palatable tone (incidental music, cinematography) which make them all the more unsettling.<br /><br />As the unlikely group finally find the town they seek they learn of the true atrocities that occurred and find out a lot about who they really are.<br /><br />Elijah wood is as authentic as usual, bringing his usual innocence and strength to the screen. Formally a resident good in Lord of the Rings and a resident evil in Sin City he plays Jonathan with aplomb as he is bombarded with culture shocks and a quest for truth. Boris Leskin as the grandfather also delivers his angst and frustration at the youths with great humour and conviction as his own past is unravelled. However, it is Eugene Hutz as Alex that makes the show. The director using that old trade of translation misunderstandings to create and maintain a humour that is actually funny and not gimmicky.<br /><br />Schreiber has delivered an enchanting debut that has both heart and soul. The continuous score and beautiful photography creates a fairy tale haze around a story about identity, truth and family. If there was a complaint, it would be the speed at which the film changes direction; though this could have been intentional it may not sit well with all. Nevertheless this is a sterling effort that delivers great comedy and bonding between an unlikely group while dissecting another aspect of the horrors of World War 2 in a completely fresh fashion.<br /><br />-Chi&Ojo
|
positive
|
I generally loved the Carry on movies but this one is actually pretty awful. There are very few laughs because the whole thing is so forced.There is plenty of talent on the screen and some come off better than others. June Whitfield, Kenneth Williams, Hatti Jaques and Peter Butterworth are fine but Barbara Windsor looks tired and Sid James is just tacky. Joan Sims comes off well but in the case of the usually wonderful Charles Hawtrey its just plain sad. When you think of the sad end to his career the movie is almost too depressing to watch. The homophobia of the movie is nasty and its a very unpleasant experience. The set looks cheap and unlike other movies in the series the movie is very clearly set in England. The sea side looks cold and there is little attempt to create any illusions here. It looks like a cheap production. You will be surprised at how miserable you become watching this especially if you loved the series.
|
negative
|
OK, this 'horror' film was meant to be a joke, right? Please tell me it was supposed to be a joke, then I'll understand.<br /><br />A big cawing bird with giant claws - or one claw, anyway - swoops down on unsuspecting folks on the ground and gobbles them up. Mara Corday and Jeff Morrow sufficiently overact in order to keep things interesting, but at least you'll enjoy a hearty snicker when you see the 'monster'. It looks like a cross between a deranged chicken and Mortimer Snerd.<br /><br />Either director Fred Sears just made this picture in a hurry and knew the bird looked utterly ridiculous, or he really thought his film and creature were genuinely frightening. I prefer to think - and hope - it was the former.<br /><br />P.S. The bird needs a haircut.
|
negative
|
This is screamingly funny (well, except when Bruce is in the hospital scene, which is a little sad). <br /><br />Ted Raimi and Stacy Keach are both excellent and worth watching.<br /><br />Sure, it's not a big budget-suit controlled blockbuster, but it's everything it promises to be and more- and BTW- the women are wonderful in their parts, though I don't know them from other movies, I'd welcome seeing them again.<br /><br />The two-brain walking scene is inspired and certainly a showcase for Bruce's outstanding physical comedy- he is one yummy guy!<br /><br />Thanks Bruce, for your brain, this is your baby!
|
positive
|
After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.
|
negative
|
I thought the racism and prejudice against Carl Brashear was grossly overdramatized for Hollywood effect. I do not believe the U. S. Navy was ever that overtly racist. I cannot imagine a full Captain, the Commanding Officer, ever telling his Chief to intentionally flunk anyone. Certainly not at the risk of his life. And there has never been a Chief Petty Officer as unabashedly prejudice against everybody but WASPs as DeNiro's character. No Chief as slovenly and drunken as he was played would have ever risen to Master Chief in the first place. Cuba Gooding saved an otherwise badly done movie.
|
positive
|
Having not seen the films before (and not being able to stand Matt Damon), I was reluctant to go see The Bourne Ultimatum when we were asked to see it for AS Film Studies. <br /><br />However, I was pleasantly surprised that even a film with Damon in it could be enjoyable. <br /><br />Fast fight scenes, crazy motorbike chases and BIG explosions were what threw you out of your seat in TBU. The near-misses between the CIA and Bourne kept you on your toes and throughly entertained.<br /><br />Nevertheless, several things really grated my cheese.<br /><br />Firstly, the fact that the film was just a series of Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA, Bourne, CIA. This sequence got repetitive and ultimately dull. Although Damon did keep us entertained and seemed always one step ahead of the CIA, I was getting a bit annoyed with the constant survival of Bourne. He crashed a car and got out as if he had tapped it or something! Very unrealistic.<br /><br />And secondly (inevitably) - the SHAKY CAMERA. It was so shaky it was completely noticeable and made me and everyone who went to see it in my class (even the tutors) seasick. We were told by the tutors that if we ever used that in a film we made in class, it would automatically be wrong and we would be told to use a tripod. Fair enough if Greengrass wanted it to look like we were there watching Damon and Stiles holding a conversation, but surely we wouldn't be shaking our heads that violently!<br /><br />But all in all TBU is an enjoyable film and worth a watch. But I didn't think it was the best film of the year, despite being an entertaining piece of cinema.<br /><br />8/10.
|
positive
|
Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)
|
negative
|
I get teased all the time by family and friends for my tears over movies, and they were not disappointed when I watched this one. I cried numerous times but believe me it was not over sappiness. I ached for the family and I ached for this man as he tried to redeem himself the only way he knew how. Denzel was fabulous as always, and so was Chris Walkin. Mickey Rourke, I did not even recognized though; the years have not been kind to him. My husband is not one to re-watch movies unless they are historically accurate war movies(snore!!!!) He has watched this movie 5 times now and I am going to have to get the DVD to watch it again because he has worn out the tape and it jumped the whole time I was watching.
|
positive
|
Over 21 the film version of the Ruth Gordon play which detailed her experiences trying to keep the marriage together with Garson Kanin after he'd gone in the service provides Irene Dunne with one of her better later roles on the big screen. It's also in keeping with what was then an upbeat spirit in America about how we would not screw up the peace as we did in the first World War and sow the seeds of yet another global conflict.<br /><br />The play Ruth Gordon wrote and starred in herself ran for 221 performances in 1944 on Broadway and was confined simply to the bungalow that Gordon and Harvey Stephens who was the male lead had on a training base. If you look on the Broadway credits list it says that the production was 'staged' by George S. Kaufman as opposed to being directed by him. I'm not sure of the distinction, but I can imagine that with a wit and will as strong as Kaufman's it must have been an interesting period putting the production together before opening night.<br /><br />When Columbia bought the screen rights, Sidney Buchman had to do some considerable script reconstruction to move the action beyond the bungalow. The film bears very little trace of its stage origins.<br /><br />Alexander Knox plays the husband and Charles Coburn the employer of both Dunne and Knox who are writers. Knox has graduated to not only editor, but featured columnist. His words and thoughts help sell the paper and Coburn is in a bind. But Knox feels he has to get into the war, the seminal event of his time in order to speak authoritatively on the kind of post war world he wants. This was not an uncommon theme in those years. <br /><br />Irene Dunne has some good comic moments, the kind she used to have when she was appearing opposite Cary Grant. In fact Garson Kanin directed both of them in My Favorite Wife a few years earlier. Coburn is his usual cantankerous old water buffalo of a boss who ultimately has a good heart.<br /><br />Over 21 was an optimistic picture which sad to say wasn't accurate about what the Allies and I mean all of them could bring to the peace conferences to create a better world. Still hopefully a new generation will get it right.
|
positive
|
This movie would receive a much higher vote from me in general and I will talk about why, but first and foremost it receives four stars and should stay at four stars because of the directors ridiculously tasteless portrayal of rape and sexual assault. Not far into the movie Oyama sexually assaults a woman he rescued earlier, and while she briefly becomes somewhat miffed by his actions this attitude only lasts about five minutes before loving adoration sets in and carries her character through the rest of the film. I know many will argue that it's not that important in a kung fu beat-em-up, and as a fan of the genera I can't say that it's all that unusual, but that doesn't stop it from being completely tasteless every time I see it.<br /><br />What I will say in this movie's defence however is that it's somewhat refreshing to see a martial arts, or even action movie of any sort, that offers no actual hero for the viewer to get behind. Oyama is portrayed as a rapist and murderer; a societal outcast whose only student becomes completely mentally unbalanced before being gunned down by the police. The final shots of the movie leave one with the feeling that Oyama himself is poised for a major breakdown and no longer seems to care for the woman he earlier assaulted into loving him and has since followed him with puppy-dog like devotion.<br /><br />Whether this was truly the intended message of the movie or not, one can't help but feel a little hopeful that Oyama might be on the brink of suicide by the time the movie is over. This is a rare emotional treatment from the martial arts genre and its interesting to see a film that leaves you with a sense that its violence is not to be celebrated. If only Karate Bullfighter had treated the subject of sexual violence better, either by creating more emotional depth and recognition between the two characters involved, or by leaving it out all together, this would have been a much more interesting film.
|
negative
|
For anyone who has only seen Disney Productions beautifully animated version of 'Beauty & The Beast', or even Jean Cocteau's surreal fairy tale vision will be quite taken aback by this 1975 French (but with a director from Poland) version. The plot concerns a French family of fading aristocracy that is marrying into a well to do English family. The major catch is that the bridegroom is carrying an ancient curse on the family. The film also includes many flashback sequences (potentially) explaining this family curse. From the opening credits, to the very end, it's a nearly non stop erotic fun house ride, with some VERY explicit & graphic sexual content (hence the film's X rating in the U.S. in it's initial run,which is now unrated). The film's somewhat contemptuous sentiment at the ruling class will probably remind one of Bunuel's flights into similar territory. If you have a taste for the truly bizarre, and are not offended by "taboo" material, then this film may just scratch that itch for you.
|
positive
|
**SPOILERS** Simple movie about simple people who's problems are far too complex for them to handle.<br /><br />Natalie aka Sara Ravenna, Shirley Knight, has become overwhelmed with married life and the fact that she's now pregnant is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Taking off from her homes in Long Island New York Natalie has no idea where she's going but hopes to find peace and tranquility somewhere in the heartland of America. It's on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that Natalie picks up hitchhiker Jimmie "Killer" Kilgannon, James Cann,who seems as lost and confused as she is. As Natalie, calling herself Sara at the time, soon finds out Jimmie had suffered a serious brain concussion while playing football on his collage team and has been reduced to such a simple minded individual who's so passive that he lets everyone, including later in the movie Natalie, step all over him.<br /><br />Sympathetic at first Natalie becomes very annoyed at the self pitying Jimmie for not standing up for himself and letting himself be used as a doormat by everyone he comes in contact with in the movie. Not knowing what to do with the child-like Jimmie Natalie finally gets him a Job in far off Nebraska as a cleaning man at the Reptile Jungle pet market owned and run by, Mr. Alfred, Tom Aldrege. Being the both kind and simple-minded person that he is Jimmie lets all the animals out of their cages causing havoc at the pet store and has him fired by his boss Mr. Alfred.<br /><br />In the meantime Natalie who thought that she was finally through with Jimmie ends up back at the Reptile Jungle when she's given a speeding ticket by traffic cop Gordon, Robert Duvall. It seems that Mr. Alfred is also the acting county judge and is the person that Natalie is to pay her traffic fine to. While all this is happening Gordon-the cop- had developed a strong liking for Natalie and wants to get her in the sack, at his trailer home, the first chance he can. Gordon a widower with a uncontrollable 12 year old daughter Rosalie, Marva Zimmet, needs a mature woman-with lots of lovin'- to make him forget his many social and psychological problems and Natalie is exactly the medicine that the doctor ordered!<br /><br />***SPOILERS*** Wild and shocking final with Gordon going completely out of his mind and attempting to rape Natalie, who refused his drunken advances, which has Jimmie finally get out of his self-pitying stupor and came to her rescue. There's no happy ending here with Natalie saved from being both manhandled and raped by Gordon but Jimmie, who was bouncing Gordon around like a Ping-Pong ball, ending up dead for all his good and noble efforts.<br /><br />Jimmy by far was he most tragic and sympathetic person in the entire movie. All Jimmie wanted was a friend to talk to and spend time with and all he ended up getting was the sh*t end of the stick. By everyone even the one person who at first treated him with kindness and understanding Natalie Ravenna! In the end Jimmie even though he was treated like dirt by everyone despite his willingness not to offend even those who stepped all over him came out as the most likable kindest as at the same time heroic person in the entire film.
|
positive
|
I grew up watching this series. I was about seven/eight years old when it was on. I still remember the 1st episode which was called "The New House." It scared the h*ll out of me! I can almost still hear that statue, laughing madly. And the ending, oh my God! The hooror spirit comes in the room for the child: Yikes! This was classic TV and it was a one of a kind series. I have found a DVD collection for sale on the internet: 2 actually. My question to any readers: Has anyone purchased this set? Its a bootleg. Both sellers claim to have very good copy. I have a sketchy and poor DVD of "The New House" episode, and a couple of other episodes that are a bit better,however, if anyone knows if these are much clearer it would be worth it to me to buy and share with my kids. A great series, clever, scary and daringly supernatural. Thanks in advance to any fans who have the low down on any of this- In fact, I'd love to discuss it. Chris Walker
|
positive
|
Diane Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.<br /><br />Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.
|
negative
|
This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.
|
negative
|
Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.
|
negative
|
Doris Day never lets a bad script get her down. Even in the most trying of circumstances, Day gives 100% and usually comes out unscathed. This comedy, perhaps inspired by a real-life New York City black-out in 1965 but actually adapted from a late-'50s French play by Claude Magnier, gives Doris little to do but spoof her own goody-goody image and, in the second-half, be comically sedated (which is amusing because of the spin Day gives to the situation). There are some funny lines here, yet the staginess of the material has obviously been carried over from the play...and instead of conjuring up some amusing incidents within the Big Apple, we get stuck in the suburbs. Doris' co-stars (Patrick O'Neal, Robert Morse, and Terry-Thomas) are not well-suited to her, and neither is the shapeless hairdo they've got her wearing. Still, it's not terrible, it features a few big laughs, and for Day-buffs it's a must-see. ** from ****
|
negative
|
This a lovely and charming epic fantasy with lots of heart. I got lost in this sweet film watching it at the Mann's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. It's truly romantic with a touching message.The artwork and the effects are visually striking and the fact that the director is an amazing artist is so apparent. The frames are like watching moving art. It also has a strong and talented cast of actors. What a wonderful surprise to see Joss Ackland, he is just a fairy-tale perfect King. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the villain and Christine Taylor and Tom Schultz make a lovely romantic pair. The fact that the movie was made on a ridiculously tiny indie film budget just blows me away. It may not be the slick Hollywood stuff we're inundated by but it's a really nice movie to rent and enjoy curled up on your sofa on a rainy Saturday. Don't forget the microwave popcorn. That's my advice. Just enjoy it.
|
positive
|
Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.<br /><br />This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.<br /><br />The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.<br /><br />The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.<br /><br />Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.<br /><br />The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.<br /><br />Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.
|
negative
|
This movie is to Halloween what the hilarious "Christmas Story" is to Christmas: both are relatively low-budget, no-big-name-stars type films...and both are two of the absolute greatest and funniest movies available, both seasonal CLASSICS!!! "Spaced Invaders" comes galloping out right from the start with warmth and humor and a superb cast of characters...all five goofy Martians, Klembecker the Realtor, Russell the deputy, Vern at the "fuel dispensing depot" and so many more! You just have to see this movie to believe it, and, like "Christmas Story", it just keeps getting better and better with each viewing, and you pick up on fun little things each time!! MOST DEFINITELY A TEN!!!
|
positive
|
WHITE FIRE was recommended to me by a guy who owns it on two separate DVD releases and on VHS. He claimed it's one of the funniest and coolest low budget actioners ever made. I generally don't watch movies knowing that they're going to be bad, but I made an exception for this one... and I was very glad that I did.<br /><br />It's filled to the brim with action (much of it surprisingly, graphically gory), sleaze (isolated to nudity with a key female character, but there's so much of it in one scene that it becomes hilarious) and outrageously awkward dialogue, all of which adds to the laughter-inducing tone of the film.<br /><br />Ginty, the unusual looking star of THE EXTERMINATOR (and countless other low budget action turds) is amusing in the lead, giving the best performance he could muster. Williamson is better than usual, clearly hamming it up with unparalleled glee (and he doesn't come in until midway through). The rest of the cast is also fun to watch, particularly the villains, one of whom is a sadistic sexpot who speaks with an accent that appears to be a mish-mash of Spanish and Italian. She's priceless.<br /><br />Again, I can't stress enough how gory it was. It's not so bloody that it's nauseating, but it's uncommonly violent in parts with some meaty squibs going off in the shootouts and it has a grueling torture sequence that no man will soon forget. Also, when Ginty is being swarmed by a pack of bad guys, he conveniently gets a hold of a chainsaw and the splatter moments that follow will have any and all action fans cheering and spilling their beers.<br /><br />Don't miss WHITE FIRE. It's a rollicking - if mind-numbingly stupid - action classic.
|
positive
|
I tried. I really, really tried to think of something that would merit rating this higher than a two. It's not that I don't "get it" -- I'm a big fan of Asian cinema. The truth is, the movie is infantile in construction, long-winded, and painfully disjointed.<br /><br />I suppose that if you are of Alfred Hitchcock's school of thought "Don't tell them, show them," then you could try to appreciate this movie, but you would still be hard pressed.<br /><br />First of all, The Terrorizers tries stream-of-consciousness in the style of Jean-Luc Godard and fails in this. Edward Yang seems to understand the basics of the technique, but he's very unskilled at it. (Perhaps he gets better with age; I don't know as I haven't yet attempted other Yang films.) The point is, he uses a dearth of "show, don't tell" that really only serves to interrupt the procession of the story. Sure, he gets in some visually arresting images, but they don't draw the story together, and they don't help to make it any better.<br /><br />Additionally, the major concept behind stream-of-consciousness and "show, don't tell" is that with the right images, the right drama, repetition, and tight correlation, the viewer will be able to make his or her own inferences; not to say that these will be the correct inferences, but those can be amended as the story progresses, and every director should strive for some of this type of audience interaction. In this, Edward Yang sorely disappoints. The viewer is constantly on the periphery. There is no reason to be drawn in, no reason to consider the characters or their motives, no reason to get emotionally involved, and really, no reason to stay alert.<br /><br />Finally, Yang gets lost in the story that he wants to tell, not the story that the movie itself is telling. His art moves in one direction, but like a large dog he can't control, he's constantly yanking the lead, trying to get it back onto the course he wants, not the one that it is naturally following. The most egregious example of this is the ending. The ending really should have occurred at the moment of the husband's revelation. The ending of the book that the movie is focusing on, (and by extension, a possible ending for the movie) has already been told to us. If Yang had chosen to end at that point, he would have had a much more powerful piece, leaving the watcher in suspense -- does the story play out as the book says, or does Yang's "real world" play out differently? Asking the viewer to think about this is the sort of viewer interaction that Yang painfully needs. Instead, he continues to tell the story he wants to tell, straining the natural conclusion for the sake of what? For the sheer sake of lingering on a main character -- we didn't' need to know more about her superficially, and Yang wouldn't feel the need to tell us if he hadn't made her into a veneer instead of bothering to make her a more engaging and deep character to begin with. <br /><br />Why else does Yang prolong and torture his movie? To get in some more of those "visually arresting images." The movie truly suffers for it. It wants to end, it has a conclusion that feels natural and leaves the viewer unsettled, but instead, Yang pushes on. Instead, Yang constructs a complex ending that leads the viewer on, causing him or her to constantly ask "so what?" The first ending, the one that Yang ignored, that was good. The second ending, well, my thought was"so what, who cares?", because it's not as if it is introducing something that hasn't been put forth in the storyline already... but the last ending? That really was a waste of time. Not only did the "real" ending leave me disengaged, but I also felt it was an affront to what the story could have been. Yang sacrificed a potentially good story for the bubblegum-melancholy-noir-tinged conclusion that he had insisted upon all along.<br /><br />My last problem with the movie has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather its post-production. The subbing (if you see it subbed) is horrible. Long sentences stay up for a second or two, while short ones stay up far too long. Also, as Yang quickly changes images, the subtitles are removed from the screen. This is one of those rare instances that subtitles should be able to stay on the screen even as the image has changed, because there's not much dialog going on anyway.
|
negative
|
The main criticism of AT THE EARTH'S CORE is that it's cheap, the special effects are bad and so on and so forth. Yes, some of the special effects are painfully bad but what a lot of folks overlook about it is that it's actually quite fun, which is very important in my book.<br /><br />In comparison, just look at the latest STAR WARS films: they have the latest, greatest special effects created by the latest technological advances which are capable in creating stunning visual effects as far reaching as the human imagination can imagine and yet, with all the razzle dazzle, those films were as exciting as a funeral. As Yoda would say, Fun they're not! In other words, who cares if the FX aren't the greatest when the spirit of the film is fast-paced, humorous and clearly set on the side of action. I love everything about AT THE EARTH'S CORE: the contrast between stodgy Victorian England VS the wild other-worldly, colorful setting of Pellucidar, the cast of characters, the concept of a lost underground world, the telepathic Pterodactyls, the human slaves rebelling, Jubal the ugly one (lol!), the inspired teaming of Peter Cushing (who's great!) and Doug McClure, the excellent music (it's really good), cinematography by the amazing Alan Hume and last but not least, Caroline Munro. She's effing sexy in this movie. One of the sexiest B-movie babes ever captured on screen.<br /><br />Seriously, anyone who doesn't like this movie doesn't know what fun is. Gimme AT THE EARTH'S CORE over any turgid STAR WARS prequels any time! At least it has Caroline Munro, which no CGI fx can ever recreate.
|
positive
|
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.<br /><br />You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.<br /><br />MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.<br /><br />Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.<br /><br />It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.<br /><br />If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.<br /><br />Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!
|
negative
|
I saw this movie with my family and it was great! This film is more than just a documentary (that offers not more than cold facts) with long mono/-duologue's and lots of charts...The complete "power" of this movie comes from the impressive pictures being filmed under water, in the air or the Arctic.With watching this movie you can learn more about our planet than with just reading a book, it shows that WE are embedded in the circular flow of life. This movie is not only for "environmental fanatics" although people that want to look a good movie with a message should watch it. This movie taught me that we are not only living on the earth...we live with and through the earth and all plants and animals grow and die with us.
|
positive
|
Richard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.
|
negative
|
After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't "heartwarming" or "clever"; it was merely an amalgam of every other "mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other" movie ever made.<br /><br />The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's "all right, then" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.<br /><br />Oh, and the movie is called "What's Cooking" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the "musical-montage", where they play the Surfari's "Wipeout", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of "disgracing the family" runs pretty strong throughout.<br /><br />All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clichés are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.
|
negative
|
I got some free tickets via the Times to see this little know Irish movie called 'Inside I'm Dancing'... i didn't know a thing about it, so had no preconceptions before i went in.<br /><br />The film is about two guys who are confined to their wheel chairs, and live in a home. Michael (Steven Robertson) suffers from Cerabal Palsy and Rory (James McAvoy) suffers from Muscular Dystrophy (please excuse any spelling mistakes!). They form a bond, as Rory seems to be the only person who can understand what Michael is saying. They eventually leave the home to live in a flat in Carrigmore by themselves. They immediately employ the help of an attractive girl (Romola Garai) to look after them. The two friends eventually both fall in love with the same woman. Thats the story in a nutshell, but there are lots of laughs and tears along the way... in fact... being unprepared as i was.. i found the tears were flowing way too often! In fact! I don't think i've cried so much watching a movie since The Elephant Man!!! This film is a HUGE drain on the emotions... both in the fun stuff, and the sad stuff. The acting is absolutely spot on! James McAvoy is my tip for greatness... he's a great Irish actor and i think he has a great future ahead of him. Steven Robertson who plays Michael was superb too... and it wasn't until today that i found out that he doesn't suffer from Cerabal Palsy and it was just some superb acting! Brenda Fricker is also in this film, and plays the part of the Home's Manager very well. The other great part has to be Romola Garai, she was wonderful as the love interest, and i reckon we'll be seeing more of her on the big screen in the near future!<br /><br />The thing that makes this film work, is not only the synergies between the two leads, but the script... which is just so #### witty it literally is on fire! I still can't help repeating some of the lines in my head even now.<br /><br />The photography is good, although very bleak, but then it is capturing a certain type of area of Ireland. The music is great in this film too, as well as the choice in Songs... the use of the Johnny Cash cover of the Nine Inch Nails track 'Hurt' is inspired!! <br /><br />If i had to sum this film up in one word... it would be 'emotional'. This film is very very funny... and then on the turn of a coin its very very sad! I still can't believe that still two days after seeing the film, looking back on it i both laugh and almost cry! This film is amazing... and i hope it goes far! Although i can't see that, as its advertising budget is probably very small! <br /><br />So go see it! I urge you... you wont regret it...
|
positive
|
This film is like a 1950-version of Ettore Scola's Brutti sporchi e cattivi. Less sex and less realism, but a tale with great humanism and warmth. I wouldn't call this a neo-realistic picture. It's very sentimental and more like a fairy tale, and should probably be classed as a comedy, although it deals with serious matters (a little like Chaplin or 1930-comedy). Typical Italian though, very emotional, and hard to resist except for a stone cold person. The sentimentalism is a letdown, although this picture was not meant to be a realistic drama. It's not a masterpiece like Umberto D or The Bicycle Thief. But it is a lovable and hilarious comedy, with good music.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.