review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.<br /><br />Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little "I'm gonna kill you" speech before blowing a man's head off.<br /><br />Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.<br /><br />Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film.
|
negative
|
As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.<br /><br />The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.<br /><br />Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.<br /><br />There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.
|
negative
|
(spoiler) it could be the one the worst movie you see, you might like it like I did I really like it. Its one of those odds movie. <br /><br />There is man who seen to have a had day in life. Blacks rats some how feel sorry him (which I think was a good Idea).<br /><br />The killer rats become friends with man two big man come making feel unwanted so the man set the killer rat on them and floor to floor both bodies covered in big black rats not that much blood.<br /><br />but think about big black rats all over body) but start to little killing people but rats are going over-bored until the rats kills his friends and girlfriends, <br /><br />Ther one scene in were seating on the toilet while rats are going into the pipes leading to toilet and rat goes up his you know and come out of his mouth, (which mean the rats must off eaten everything inside in body's) I had me laughing for weeks<br /><br />why did i like this movie, yes it's different of the rest, I for ONE like it when little creature takes on mankind. <br /><br />if you have seen any of these movie slugs, slither, Them, spiders, snakes, tremors ,Cujo, crocodile, shark, octopus.<br /><br />If you liked them and check out Hood rats, <br /><br />it better then Terror toons that all I Can say! 4/10
|
negative
|
Whoa, this is one of the WORST movies I have EVER seen! The packaging for the film is better than the film itself. My girlfriend and I watched it this past weekend, and we only continued to watch it in the hopes that it would get better...it didn't...<br /><br />The picture quality is poor; it looks like it was shot on video and transferred to film. The lighting is not great, which makes it harder to read the actors' facial expressions. The acting itself was cheesy, but I guess it's acceptable for "yet another" teenage horror flick. The sound was a huge problem: sometimes you have to rewind the video because the sound is unclear and/or muffled.<br /><br />It holds no real merit of it's own; trying to ride on the coattails of "Sleepy Hollow." Don't bother with this one.
|
negative
|
The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.<br /><br />16 years later, and MGM / Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.<br /><br />Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.<br /><br />Having said that, with new lines such as "I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.<br /><br />I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.<br /><br />Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.<br /><br />My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.<br /><br />Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane "just like I killed your father" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.<br /><br />Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, "Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days!
|
negative
|
Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.
|
negative
|
Originally, the Spiders was planned as a four-part serial, and it shows. I dislike serials; they're typically ridiculous, convoluted and banal. This one is no exception. In the first part of the Spiders, 'The Golden Lake,' a rich adventurer thwarts the plans of a gang of criminals--the Spiders--to steal gold from Incas. A silly love triangle ensues, with some Cowboys and Indians action. The sensationalism and exotica of it didn't entertain me.<br /><br />One can legitimately trace themes from this two-part series to Lang's later, far superior work. And, the film-making is better than in other serials I've seen from this time, including 'Les Vampires' (1915). In the Spiders, the camera isn't as static, and this film is fast paced, thankfully. The tinting and lighting are adequate, too. None of that's remarkable, though. It's nearly unseemly, however, in how closely this series resembles Louis Feuillade's serials; the criminal gang dresses and behaves like those in 'Les Vampires'--only the names, and to a lesser extent, the situations have changed.<br /><br />For the further comments on The Spiders series, see the web pages for it.
|
negative
|
This is a good family show with a great cast of actors. It's a nice break from the reality show blitz of late. There is nothing else quite like it on television right now either, unless you count Joan of Arcadia as being similar because it has a teen lead character too. Anyway, Clubhouse is worth a look because Jeremy Sumpter gives the main character (Pete Young) a kind of likability and naiveté that is appealing without being overly sweet and cuddly. Dean Cain, Christopher Lloyd, Mare Winningham and Kirsten Storms round out the rest of the main cast members, and each is terrific in their role. I really like Kirsten Storms as Pete's sister Betsy; she is quite a pill, but she still cares about her mom and brother, even though she hates to show it. It may take a few episodes to really find it's legs, but Clubhouse is easily one of the best shows to come along in a good long while, so check it out people--you'll be glad you did!
|
positive
|
Captain Corelli's Mandolin is no Oscar contender but it was pretty good. I have to admit Ms Cruz can really act. She puts on a very good performance. In fact she our does her boyfriend Tom in drama. John Hurt was great as usual. Nicholas Cage seemed to be enjoying himself. I bet he felt he was going back to his roots as an Italian. However, I did learn something. One more chapter in Horrors of Nazi Germany the many Italian soliders killed during the period of there surrender to the allies and Germany's eventual surrender.
|
positive
|
Probably the first Portuguese film I have seen in my life, and I enjoyed it. The plot is related of how the young army officers took the power in Portugal in 1974, to finally defeat the fascist government of Caetano and to also finalize the wars in the colonies, i.e. Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea (Bissau)- Cape Vert. Most of the events shown in the film reflect with exactitude the behavior of the army officers and soldiers to conduct the coup, of the oppressed people, who were very happy with this new development and the liberty, the resistance of Caetano's men, and also in a subtle way of most conservative officials, including Spinola, who took over as the new president. The Portuguese revolution can be remembered because of the action of several young officers, but for me the most interesting part of the film was when the young captain expressed that Portugal should develop itself democratically, and this is what the country achieved some years after this coup or revolution. The film also shows that the army officers and soldiers never wanted to kill anyone; even the most serious enemies were respected at the end.
|
positive
|
I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.<br /><br />Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.<br /><br />Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.<br /><br />The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.<br /><br />If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel.
|
positive
|
After the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.<br /><br />Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.<br /><br />Bottom Line: 5/10<br /><br />
|
negative
|
Some directors take 2 and a half hours to tell a story, David Lynch takes 2 and a half hours to piece together scenes with "clues" and his trademark oddity, but there's never a story. No plot. No progression of the characters (unless you find revealed delusion a "progression"). It amazes me how anyone can call Lynch's garbage "art", but if beauty rests in the eye of the beholder, so be it. Lynch's movie and TV work in the 1980's came off as "avant garde" and "alternative", fine. 20 years later, work like "Mulholland Drive" comes off as a 2.5 hour David Lynch masturbation piece. It's embarrasing. I've finally seen the movie that takes my top spot as the worst ever. At least the people churning out "Godzilla" and "Rodan" weren't passing them off as "art".
|
negative
|
If you're interested in learning about the 'real' side of spying, this movie is for you. Unlike 007 movies, this shows how things really go down in the world of espionage. Timothy Hutton and Sean Penn both give outstanding performances in this not-so-well-known film. Certainly worth watching.
|
positive
|
Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.
|
negative
|
Martin Sheen, Michelle Phillips, Stuart Margolin and the late Vic Morrow are the human stars of this movie about a young man looking for answers about his brother's death. Mr. Sheen, Mr. Margolin and Mr. Morrow all turn in first rate performances in their respective roles; Ms. Phillips has the slightly less than enviable task of trying to spice up a made-for-TV movie (twenty-five years ago), by supplying the "sex interest" in an otherwise sexless film. The real star, however, is the "California Kid"; a 1934 Ford coupe, borrowed from "Jake" Jacobs, put before a camera and given a workout that'll leave the viewer panting, gasping and holding the edge of the seat with breathless anticipation.<br /><br />The action scenes are spectacular, (although some of the dialog is a bit lame) making for a fine evening's diversion. This is how all "car movies" should be made.<br /><br />Try to catch this one on the late movie channel; it's well worth the missed sleep.
|
positive
|
After a fairly lengthy partially pixelated nude shower scene, we're off to the races for this "Blair Witch Project"-esquire horror film about three girlfriends venturing to a desolate cabin deep in the woods to get away from their hectic lives for a girls' weekend out and smoke pot. They meet two guys who seem friendly enough, so they drink and tell ghost stories, until late in the movie some of them get picked off.<br /><br />This is a fairly slow movie, with needlessly drawn out 'suspense' scenes, the bad acting can't carry the myriad of scenes where nothing happens but mindless banter, and the movie as a whole is a dud, a deathly-boring dud at that. Nothing at all happens until the last half hour and when it did I was to numb to really care.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Ashley Totin shows T&A; Evy Lutzky gets topless briefly; and Jennifer Hart shows her right tit <br /><br />My Grade: D
|
negative
|
I get the impression that I was watching a different movie to the majority of other people I know who have seen this film. It's not really that I found the film offensive or anything - just that the script was unbelievably amateurish for a film that had obviously had a bit of money thrown at it. I really respected Paul Haggis' work on the Million Dollar Baby script and was bitterly disappointed to see how bad this script was. It was clear to me that it was desperate to be the 'racism' version of Traffic, but I don't think Traffic was really a film worth ripping off in the first place. <br /><br />The worst feature of thisfilm is the way it shamelessly spoon-feeds its audience. Does Haggisreally think we are so dumb as to require a shot of the blanks? Do wereally need to see the phone book sitting on Farhad's dashboard, withthe address circled in black texta? Can we not be left to make someleaps in logic for ourselves? <br /><br />I also had a major problem with the dialogue which was so 'on the nose'. I have heard one critic say that the quality of dialogue is deceptively high, because even though people may not speak this way, they certainly do think this way. That is irrelevant. It is the job of a script like this to utilise dialogue in a way that helps add to the characterisations and believability of the (in this case highly implausible) situations that are set up. These characters all speak using the same voice and all they ever talk about is racism. <br /><br />Surely the purpose of a film like this should be to promote the fact that race should not really be an issue in these situations, but by making it the sole focus of every scene, doesn't it become innately racist itself? Characters walk around spouting their philosophies and conveniently memorised statistics on race relations as though they're regurgitating extracts from the research essay they've just written. It's utterly unconvincing and obvious. <br /><br />A film should reveal its meaning gradually, not slap us in the face with it in the opening scenes and then never let up. I can see that Haggis' intentions with this film were honorable, but dare I suggest that by directing his own script he has not been able to identify and, therefore, overcome its flaws. I really hope that writer/directors will be really careful in future when approaching this 'mosaic' style of narrative. It has been done well a number of times, but getting the balance between the personal and the political right is very difficult. And Robert Altman will not be outdone in that department.
|
negative
|
No gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...<br /><br />Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent it.
|
negative
|
I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not something I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.<br /><br />Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.<br /><br />This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.<br /><br />Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though.
|
positive
|
TV News producer, Jane Craig (Hunter) meets Tom Grunick (Hurt), an up-and-coming news presenter, at a seminar, and their mutual attraction takes them back to her room. Romance, however, is cut short, when it emerges that Tom is, in his own words, "no good at what I'm being a success at", and Jane realises he personifies everything she hates about where TV news is going. The rub comes when Tom reveals he is about to join her news bureau in Washington.<br /><br />Jane and Tom's initial attraction is therefore given a second chance, but will Jane be able to put aside her professional opinion of the man she finds herself attracted to - and should she? Aaron Altman (Brooks) is Jane's highly intelligent reporter colleague and confidante. Despite his obvious talent, Aaron's career is stalling as he lacks the confidence and people skills - and the classic good looks - to be the success that his new, less qualified and less intelligent colleague - Tom - is becoming. He is also concerned that his good friend Jane maybe falling in love with Tom, despite her better judgement, as it becomes increasingly clear that Aaron has his own romantic feelings for her.<br /><br />This central romantic plot is set within the trials and tribulations of a TV news network office, where moral dilemmas and ethics are wrestled with quickly and where appearances and dramatic effect are becoming more prevalent and important.<br /><br />This is where most of the bite comes from with well-observed comment and scenes. One of many moments is a scene where Tom meets the Network's top anchorman, Bill Rorich (a cameo role for Jack Nicholson), for the first time, and the camera focuses on their handshake. In a film full of great lines and dialogue, long and short, you realise a lot about these two men's character from this one quick shot of two hands.<br /><br />The dialogue between characters is amongst the most intelligent and witty you are ever likely to find anywhere on film and in such abundance. Brooks gets the best portion of them, in line with his character, but even the briefest conversations that are incidental and perhaps over-heard by one or more of the characters as they move through a crowded room, should be listened to.<br /><br />Hunter is a tour-de-force in this role for which she was rightly (and not alone) nominated for an Oscar, and for which she probably would have got if it was for a role in a film that didn't mock part of what had become a closely related industry - and against a strong performance from another actress in a more traditional feel-good, rom-com.<br /><br />Brooks is also excellent as the constantly frustrated and occasionally too-smug-for-his-own-good, Aaron Altman.<br /><br />Hurt, whilst possessing the looks and providing the personality required of his character, does not always convince that he is quite as dim-witted the character says he is or is supposed to be. He displays a latent intelligence that enables him to make the most of his apparent limitations, which may be plausible, but I don't think Hurt quite pulls it off. Apart from when he tells us he "stinks" or "doesn't get it", Hurt comes across as a bit smarter than that. Otherwise it is an effective performance, in a role where his character is compromised by its intellectual limitations, but Brooks and Hunter slightly overshadow Hurt's performance. It is the only negative thing I can say about the whole film, and who is to say that anyone else would have done it better, or come off any better, when next to Hunter and Brooks and their performances in this movie.<br /><br />Support is ably provided by, amongst others, Robert Prosky, Lois Chiles and Joan Cusack, and there is also a bit-part role for Christian Clemenson of subsequent Boston Legal fame, and the briefest of bit-parts for Joan's brother, John Cusack, whose face you don't even see.<br /><br />James L Brooks has provided us with many great TV shows and movies, and this film should rank up there with the very best of them. It may not have won any Oscars, despite seven nominations, but it did win plenty of other awards, and turned Holly Hunter into a star.
|
positive
|
There are a whole lot of movies, primarily from the 80s, that are so terrible that you can't help but love them. The Last Slumber Party is one of those. I hate this movie so much, but it still remains one of the most watched movies in my collection. I have watched it countless times and get a huge laugh out of it every time. It is the prime example of how in the 80s, ANY movie could get released.<br /><br />Our killers name is Maniac Randles. (Scary, huh?) Randles is an escaped psychopathic killer running around in doctor's scrubs and a doctor's jacket hacking off people with a scalpel as he goes along. He ends up coming across a house of girls that are having a slumber party. One of the girls is the daughter of the doctor that tried to operate on Randle's, and Randle's ended up pulling him down in some kind of sexual position. (lol just watch the movie to know what I am talking about.) Now I know what you must be thinking at this point: This must be another cheesy low budget hack and slash flick like Slumber Party Massacre, or Valentine's Day Massacre, right? NO! This movie is HORRIBLE! First off, the quality of the film changes off and on throughout the film. Sometimes it will look like it could have been filmed this year, but other times it is so grainy and blurry that it isn't even watchable. The funny thing is that certain specific camera angles will be blurry and grainy, and other specific camera angles will be clear and perfect, which is absolutely ridiculous and proves that they did not care at all.<br /><br />The director played the killer (as if that wasn't funny enough) but because of the fact that he wasn't talented enough to act and direct at the same time, he just filmed one shot of him walking toward the camera with his scalpel, and then just replayed that clip over and over every time someone is killed.<br /><br />The characters in this movie are completely ridiculous and unlikable, and these people who are suppose to be ages 16-18 look more like they are 25-45. I know that slasher films commonly use adults as teenagers, but I have never seen a movie where it was THIS obvious. My guess is that the reason none of them are still in the film industry today is because they have all died of old age... Or maybe it was just because this movie was so horrible that they never wanted to show their faces again, and that is a good thing because I highly doubt that they could have gotten into any more movies even if they tried. All I can do is hope that Tyler will one day make THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY 2: THE FINAL CONFLICT and have all of the original actors return. I'm sure everyone would love that.<br /><br />The movie was directed by Stephen Tyler, (No, not the singer) who never went on to direct again, and it was released by B&S (which I am sure stands for bull and ****) Productions. Bull&S only released one more film, "Forever Evil," which was pretty awful, but not near as bad as Last Slumber Party.<br /><br />A horrible, horrible, horrible film... Highly recommended.
|
negative
|
Watched both parts twice. Enjoyed the story and enjoyed seeing an older Patrick Swayze as the hero. He was very believable as the hunter Alan Quartermaine and certainly bested the performance of Richard Chamberlain. I do admit that I would have preferred seeing someone else as the "Lady in Distress". Alison Doody should stick with modern and not period pieces. She didn't have the look of the woman of the 1800's. The rest of the cast were terrific and followed the plotlines very well. I am glad to see that the actors of this generation are not afraid to try on different characters and are not afraid to be seen as getting older. Age is inevitable, but let's not hide from it. A man at 50+ can be much sexier (and , Patrick truly is sexy) then a green youth, no matter how pretty. Hoorah for character lines to go along with a great smile.
|
positive
|
Going by the good words of my friends, I hired this movie, hoping that it would at least equal the laughs of the similar movie, "House Party", but I was very disappointed, and very bored.<br /><br />Falling asleep while watching a movie is never a good sign. I don't know whether this didn't appeal to me because I don't live in "da hood", or if I'm not black, but it's probably one of the two.<br /><br />It tries to spoof a few movies, only coming up with a couple of laughs, but in the long run it fails miserably. Miss it.
|
negative
|
a fine romantic comedy. errol flynn shows what a deft touch for comedy he possessed. a talent that probably shows some of his true prankster self. the comedic writing on this film is excellent. eleanor parker does a nice job as flynn's ex wife whom errol is trying to win back. eleanor is also easy on the eyes. the sets exude 1940's glamour and style where appropriate.<br /><br />flynn's comedic timing and wit are displayed to full effect here, watch his double takes, his ability to verbally counter punch with a snappy comeback or act the straight man, and his total believability and sincerity where required, this guy could act! it is a shame errol did not get a chance to do more roles like this throughout his career, he was multi-talented to the extreme. if you enjoyed "it happened one night" with gable and colbert or some of the william powell and myrna loy comedies you will enjoy this.<br /><br />well paced and lots of laughs. a lost diamond of a movie.
|
positive
|
Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.<br /><br />I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).<br /><br />It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.<br /><br />This is a film that stays with you after viewing.
|
positive
|
I honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!<br /><br />This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family movie!!
|
negative
|
Michelle Pfeiffer is ideally cast as the frustrated mob widow in this colourful black comedy. Matthew Modine plays a clumsy FBI agent who has taken a fancy to her. Dean Stockwell steals the show as the big shot who keeps on pestering Pfeiffer; Mercedes Ruehl is dynamic as his jealous wife. It's all very eighties, but that just adds to the fun. A nice little flick, though not for every taste.
|
positive
|
this is the worst movie ive ever seen. And i have seen lots of movies. Me and my friends rented this one a wendsday evening. Man we had lots of fun. This movie is the worst most boring crap ive ever seen. But it makes you laugh! U will lay on the floor rolling around tryin to get some air. You wonder why? Just rent it and check for the keyboard playing girl at that sleazy russian bar. My mother would make a 1000 times better movie about her feedin the cats.
|
negative
|
When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.
|
negative
|
Fantastic film! Wow - this is really a treat. I can't believe that I discovered such a gem of a movie. <br /><br />A pretty young girl traveling south to Florida meets a friendly older couple with an RV, after she has a flat at a rest stop. However she learns that things aren't as they seem and the couple gets a bit creepy after she spends some time on the road with them.<br /><br />Everyone in it was just so perfect for their parts you just about believe that you are watching this happen in real life in front of you.<br /><br />Newcomer Emily Grace did a fantastic job as the really cute, yet somewhat shy Alice. Emily gives you the feeling that you can understand what she is experiencing and you can see just how she got into the situation that develops in the film. I'm sure we'll be seeing Emily in more films in the future.<br /><br />Contrary to what some others have said, the lighting and photography in this were just perfect. The editing was done well too - just the right way to put together images of the highway to give you the feeling that you are traveling along with the cast on their road trip.<br /><br />I didn't see it on the big screen, but I can only urge everyone to go out and see it. More films like this are *exactly* what we need.<br /><br />SF
|
positive
|
This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".<br /><br />My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.<br /><br />And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.<br /><br />Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.
|
negative
|
Possibly the best John Travolta role ever. Saturday Night Fever was a great movie & role, but a LONG time ago. I can't think of many of his movies or roles I've even liked, and it's easy to think of rotten ones. He can do meanies like in Pulp Fiction, but he makes the perfect funky angel, and it's hard to imagine anyone doing a better (equally slobby) job with it. Plot summaries are available everywhere, but the plot isn't the point. Just go for the ride and enjoy the cleverness of the little funnies along the way. There is nothing to dislike about this movie, unless one is searching for something profound. I wish there were more movies like this. We need a break from deep or awesome or grisly or complex or hysterical.
|
positive
|
In New York, the family man dentist Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) meets his former roommate and friend Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) by chance on the street. Charlie became a lonely and deranged man after the loss of his wife and three daughters in the tragic September 11th while Alan has problems to discuss his innermost feelings with his wife. Alan reties his friendship with Charlie and they become close to each other. Alan tries to fix Charlie's life, sending him to the psychologist Angela Oakhurst (Liv Tyler), but Charlie has an aggressive reaction to the treatment and is send to court.<br /><br />"Reign Over Me" is a good drama about loss, friendship, family and loneliness. The September 11th is irrelevant to the plot; it could be a car accident, a fire or any other tragedy, as well as the sexual harassment of Donna Remar, played by the gorgeous Saffron Burrows, to Alan. But the family drama works, supported by the great performances of Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle. Liv Tyler is quite impossible to be recognized, I do not know whether she is using excessive make-up to look older, but her face is weird. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Reine Sobre Mim" ("Reign Over Me")
|
positive
|
Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?<br /><br />Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.<br /><br />Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!<br /><br />RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended. <br /><br />** / *****
|
negative
|
What a complete piece of trash. Plot notwithstanding, when a movie's action revolves around airplanes, you'd think the writers/producers/director (or ANYONE!) would do a little bit of homework as to at least a FEW of the details. The mistakes were so glaring that I was fuming by the end of the movie. Here are just a few: I'm glad I missed the SR-71 sequence - certain to have been worse than the "Air Force One" F-117 spectacle. Commercial airlines usually have their logos painted on the aircraft rather than BOEING 747 likely the (cheap) use of some Boeing advertising/publicity footage by the director. Exposed wiring connected by wire nuts is mediocre at best for house wiring, much less multi-million dollar aircraft avionics wiring. Airplanes like the 747 rely on pressure alone rather than ship's supply oxygen to maintain breathable air, and if they did rely on an on-board supply, the canister would be far bigger than fist sized. Medical tape is not a suitable substitute for a threaded hose connection. Those were F-16s, NOT F-15s. Mach 1+ (speed of sound) would be difficult to attain on a static engine run up for takeoff (watch the airspeed indicator). "Standard formation" is simply keeping the formation inside one nautical mile, "route" formation is what they were flying - not the most useful formation for an intercept. "Acquiring missile lock" is not likely to get an airline pilot's attention - they have no radar detection or countermeasures. "Wait for my signal" is not inter-flight communication for preparing to fire anything. Depressurization from a door opening in flight is not grounds for an immediate steep left bank. Yelling into a headset does not make it transmit. Magnetic headings are given as "headings" not "bearings," and headings are between 001 and 360 degrees (compasses in the air are just like compasses on the ground!), so turning left (not "port" that's a boat thing) from a "bearing" of 618 to 502 is just stupid. It is in most cases impossible to just "turn the yoke left until the correct heading is reached" that sort of thing will result in 360 degree rolls until the yoke is centered again. The likelihood of a flight attendant immediately finding and successfully engaging the autopilot is only slightly greater than the likelihood of her actually landing the jet safely. Airplanes don't stall immediately upon pulling the throttle back, and 747s have more than one little lever to control the multi-engine thrust. Flaps are lowered in increments usually just prior to and immediately following landing gear extension, not seconds before landing (good way to crash). Wheel brakes are required to stop an airplane, simply pulling the throttle(s) (this time a different lever in the movie) to idle will just allow you to go off the end of the runway at a slower speed. Did I mention that those fighter aircraft were F-16s and NOT F-15s? Guess I did
And that's just what I REMEMBER from recently watching this horrific movie.
|
negative
|
All these reviewers are spot on. I've seen many bad films over the years, believe me, and this beats the lot!<br /><br />This is not just a "so bad it's good" exploiter waste of time, but a genuine, hilarious, movie atrocity.<br /><br />CHECK OUT the white furry monster type thing!<br /><br />WET YOURSELF LAUGHING at Thom Christopher's "spell-weaving" acting!<br /><br />GAPE IN SHEER A**E-CLENCHING DISBELIEF! at the threadbare sets!<br /><br />This is one of those "European co-productions". No wonder we have so many wars. I swear, some of the people taking part in 'Wizards of the Lost Kingdom' aren't actually aware they are appearing in a film!<br /><br />FACT! I originally watched this movie on HTV Wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. I had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. It is. Worse even than Lee Majors in The Norseman, more laughable than all of John Derek's films, this is, truly, the Citizen Kane of Trash.
|
negative
|
I watched "Deadly Voyage" because David Suchet was in it, after enjoying him in the "Poirot" series. And Joss Ackland is always worth watching, so I went into the film with an expectation of it being a potentially worthwhile film. Alas, it was not to be.<br /><br />I won't bother critiquing the performances, the pacing, the cinematography or any other structural aspect of the film; others here have already given their opinions on those elements. The only thing I want to address is the film's message, since it proclaims in the intro that it's based upon a true story, and therein hangs the film's supposed importance.<br /><br />"Deadly Voyage" primarily focuses upon an impoverished black African man named Kingsley who wants to move to the US, because he believes that he can make money there. Nothing more, nothing less -- his motivation is utterly selfish. (Of course some people will prevaricate by saying that he was doing it for his family, but in fact he decided to have children on the income he could make in Ghana, so he really just created his own problem.) To that end, Kingsley decides to stow-away aboard a Russian freighter bound for New York. In the process of doing this, he faces harsh conditions, racist crew members and other challenges.<br /><br />But this is precisely where the film leaves me unsympathetic. Why should the audience be expected to care about Kingsley? Simply because he has a goal? Goals aren't such a rare commodity that his should be privileged above say, the goal of the ship's captain or the woman he left at home with his newborn child. Kingsley's goal is illegal in the eyes of the US Government. It is also illegal in that it steals from the Russian shipping company. If he makes it to the US, it would involve taking out of a system that he has not put into. And if he gets caught, the shipping company will be fined $45,000. I doubt very much that any of the stowaways care about what their chosen course of action is costing anyone else; they're clearly just out for their own gain. He could've spent the $1,000 he won in the lottery at the beginning of the film, for legal passage to the US, and applied for residency and a work permit. Instead, he takes the illegal (and dangerous) route.<br /><br />So since Kingsley's voyage is illegal, selfish and cannot be ethically justified, why should we care about him or his ordeal? Simply because he faces challenges? Why should his challenges be privileged above the challenge of the Russian shipping company getting to New York without stowaways? Because he's black and the shipping company is white? The reason seems to be because Danny Glover (the film's executive producer) and others involved want us to root for Kingsley, as if he's a hero on some sort of noble voyage. But once you accept that illegal immigration, theft and a fool's mission aren't noble at all, you can't really care about him.<br /><br />Before anyone plays the race card, I assure you that I would've felt the same no matter what ethnicity/nationality the involved parties were. Imagine if a British person decided to stow-away in a train headed for Bhutan, sneak across the border, and collect "unwanted" Buddhist antiquities, to bring back to Britain to sell. How much sympathy could the challenges he faced generate? Very little, I'd bet. So why should we feel different for Kingley? Because he's black? Because he's poor by American standards? The filmmakers are banking on us sharing their views that the ends justify the means, and that a shipping company being fined $45,000 is inconsequential compared to the remote possibility of an unskilled laborer earning slightly more in the US than he could've if he had just stayed in his own home country. I didn't buy it for a minute.
|
negative
|
A lot of actors have a multitude of good movie roles in their soul. Some, a handful. Others, maybe a couple.<br /><br />Then there's Linda Blair. "The Exorcist". That's it.<br /><br />When you see "Chained Heat" and watch Linda Blair in it, you have to wonder what, if anything, was running through her mind.<br /><br />Certainly not, "Oh boy: Oscar for Best Actress, here I come!"<br /><br />Just another women in prison film like they used to make for the cheap in the '70s, this one actually has names you may recognize. John Vernon plays the dean... I mean, the warden (with a hot tub in his office; wonder what he told the contractor?), Stella Stevens pops up, even Henry Silva and Louisa Moritz show how bad they needed the work.<br /><br />And special mention, of course, for our heroine Sybil Danning as a bisexual prisoner who puts the moves on poor Blair. To paraphrase, Sybil is as Sybil does and everything Sybil does is done perfect. Makes you forget what a terrible movie you're watching.<br /><br />Almost.<br /><br />Two stars. One for Sybil and another for trying to pass off Linda Blair as a sex symbol. Whatever could have possessed them (get it?)?
|
negative
|
Disney-like entertainment with some un-Disney-like moments of graphic violence and sexual references. Lousy comedy alongside cliché-ridden moralizing. Noah as Abraham, Lot as his wicked buddy. Laughable special effects. Overdone acting with bad timing. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed before the Flood? Strange twists and too many sub-plots the Bible doesn't mention. God as a doubting father who just needs to be entertained by whistling before deciding the world has to be saved from disaster.<br /><br />B-movie wannabee director John Irvin adds another failure to his worthless list of poorly-directed movies that seriously lack plot and direction.
|
negative
|
In the early to mid 1970's, Clifford Irving proposed to write the ultimate biography of Howard Hughes,claiming to have spent months preparing for the book,engaged in interviews with the reclusive millionaire. When all of this turned out to be false,Irving was accused of perjury & spent several years behind bars (although always admitting his findings were accurate). Flash forward to 20001,several months prior to September 11th, a book,entitled 'Forbidden Love' (published in the U.S. as 'Honor Lost:Love And Death In Modern Day Jordan') by a previously unknown author by the name of Norma Khouri,a woman from Jordan,who reported on the death by mercy killing of her best friend Dalia,due to the fact that Dalia,being from a devout Muslim background,was dating a Christian man. It,like Irving's biography on Hughes was revealed as a potential hoax. Australian film maker,Anna Broinowski attempts to delve into the quagmire that was Khouri's attempts to clear herself of the lie(s). Over the time frame of 104 minutes,the film attempts to reveal is Norma Khouri telling the truth,or is she just a compulsive liar,with an agenda/vendetta of her own?. Interview footage with those who know/knew her (including an ex husband,her publisher,and others) tell their side of the story. This is a toothsome,well produced documentary that manages to point many fingers at just as many potential guilty parties. Not rated,but contains pervasive bad language & a re-enactment of the grisly murder scene,played over a few times (but nothing nearly as graphic & disturbing as what one would see in the latest torture porn epic,such as Saw:Part 84). Not a good choice for the little ones.
|
positive
|
This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.<br /><br />The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.<br /><br />The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.<br /><br />The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.<br /><br />Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version.
|
negative
|
Take the secret agent / James Bond craze of the sixties, mix in some concepts from Sax Rohmer's female Fu Manchu femme fatale and stir in some absurdest twisted revisionism by director Franco - you have the man-hating lesbian Sumuru, or "The 7 Secrets of..." - better known as "The Girl From Rio" in the USA, recalling "That Man From Rio," which has nothing to do with this. Yes, this does take place in Brazil, we must give it that. Sumuru, or Sumitra as she's also referred to, is like an evil version of "Modesty Blaise," played here by actress Eaton with that familiar coy smile which most of us first became acquainted with in "Goldfinger." There are numerous close-up shots of her staring off camera, slowly opening her mouth, probably while watching something unpleasant (however, she is doubled in her key lesbian scene). She controls an entire army of female warriors, colorfully costumed, and rules a city called Femina or something (just outside Rio de Janeiro?). These concepts, which previously appeared in "The Million Eyes of Sumuru," sound terrific, but, despite some intriguing set design & visuals, it follows the same campy atmosphere of, for example, the very dated "Some Girls Do," which came out around the same time and which also featured a female army. At first glance, the sight of all these armed females, usually lined up in a row, catches one's interest, but, after 15 minutes or so, you realize there's nothing else there beyond just setting up the visual.<br /><br />The plot follows what seems like a secret agent, a male, arriving in Brazil with 10 million dollars. He catches the attention of the local crime lord (Sanders, hamming it up as an elderly Bond-type villain), who sends dark-suited thugs in bowler hats to accost him. This sets everything up for a 3-way conflict between the agent, the crime lord and the mysterious Sumuru (the crime lord wants Sumuru's secrets). Sumuru also keeps various prisoners in glass cages - maybe that's one of the secrets. This sounds exciting but there are problems which go beyond just a slow pace; there are many shots which could have used a lot of tightening: one shot of an arriving airplane, for example, stays on the craft as it settles to a near stop, as if this had never been captured on film before. There's a similar approach to a typical sunset, as if there's something unusual about it. The fight scenes are very substandard, as if the filmmakers had to use the first takes. To add some production value, there's a scene of the real Rio carnival about midway through. I'm guessing there were various budget problems, especially evident in the climactic battle, where fake sound effects and smoke cover up a lot of bogus action, such as the lack of even real-looking guns - it calls to mind those times when kids use plastic guns and pretend bullets are being fired, falling over unconvincingly. There are touches of sadism, such as torturing a character to get answers, and female nudity, an early depiction of such after some restrictions were lifted. But, mostly, you'll be rolling your eyes. Hero:3 Villains:5 Femme Fatales:5 Henchmen:4 Fights:3 Stunts/Chases:3 Gadgets:4 Auto:4 Locations:6 Pace:3 overall:4
|
negative
|
North Africa in the 1930's. To a small Arab town on the edge of the Sahara comes a beautiful woman looking for meaning to her life & a handsome Trappist monk fleeing from his crisis of faith. They will meet and passions will be stirred, but not even the Sand Diviner knows if they will find happiness or sorrow, here, in THE GARDEN OF ALLAH.<br /><br />The plot is pure hokum, but the film is still great fun & beautiful to look at. Marlene Dietrich & Charles Boyer are a superb screen couple. She is, to put it simply, gorgeous, and Boyer gives a most effective, understated performance, letting his sensitive face do much of his acting for him. <br /><br />The supporting cast is excellent: Basil Rathbone, in a sympathetic role as a Count who loves the desert; Joseph Schildkraut as a friendly, talkative guide (all the "Arabic" he & others speak in the film is pure gibberish); Lucile Watson as a gentle Mother Superior; Alan Marshal as an honorable young French officer; Tilly Losch as a dangerous dancer; Henry Brandon as a comic porter; John Carradine as the mysterious Sand Diviner; and magnificent Sir C. Aubrey Smith as a wise old priest.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Helen Jerome Eddy as a nun; Marcia Mae Jones & Bonita Granville (peeking over the nun's shoulder) as convent girls; gaunt Nigel De Brulier as a monastery lector; and Ferdinand Gottschalk as a hotel clerk, all uncredited.<br /><br />Color films of the 1930's are both rare & lovely to look at, and this movie is no exception - the cinematography is as colorful as the desert itself. THE GARDEN OF ALLAH was the first Technicolor film to be shot on location. Yuma, Arizona gave the film makers all the sand dunes they could desire, but contaminated drinking water & 135 degree heat soon had the company in revolt. When the daily rushes showed Boyer's face had burned a bright tomato red, producer David O. Selznick finally gave in. The remainder of the film was shot on a Hollywood sound stage.
|
positive
|
This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.
|
negative
|
Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass.
|
negative
|
Short synopsis <br /><br />This film opens with soldiers being released from the company of men. One of them pursues another with a weird scheme the other repeatedly refuses. Later they both get trapped in an office building in which they want to crack a safe during the Christmas holidays. Hostility turns into playful banter and then into a desperate fight for survival (during the bantering they lose all drinkable liquids, so it is really serious). With exposed, well built and well oiled torsos they ram a hole into a wall and finally manage to escape only to find out that they have been betrayed and set up by women. One gets caught, the other remains free and is not given away by his companion. A last encounter, a last light for a cigarette, adieu l'ami, farewell, friend.<br /><br />I found it hard not to see closet homosexuals in the two main characters, played by classical he-man superstars Alain Delon and Charles Bronson. They are obviously attracted to each other, their treatment of women is abominable and marked by contempt throughout. The whole story seems to have a strong symbolic undertow, a little like Deliverance. It is also very stylish. The safe the two men want to crack is in a for the time ultra modern glass and aluminum tower. It is the seat of a publicity firm, so there are many fancy posters and wall coverings around. The wardrobe is also very good. The ultra stylish Citroen DS (maybe the most modern and elegant car of all times) features large in this movie perhaps a subtle kind of product placement.<br /><br />I can recommend this movie for the actor's performances alone. Delon and Bronson are really sharing the top billing, in a manner that struck me as very fair and sporting. Both do a considerable amount of acrobatics. I have never seen Bronson better than here, he really acts - and speaks French throughout, with a heavy accent buy very passably indeed. And it is certainly the man himself we hear. (So the French language version is highly recommended). The police inspector who pursues the two is played by on of my favorite Franch character actors, Bernard Fresson who was Gene Hackman's partner in French Connection II. He is the best brainy police inspector I know. Also very good is former child actress Brigitte Fossey as the young ingénue who, as it turns out, is not so Innocent as it first seems.<br /><br />Anyone who expects the old in-an-out" of classical heist movies might be disappointed with this film. For those with a little patience this will be a rewarding experience, full of novel and original ideas and directorial quirks, although it my be a little too brutal and sadistic for its own sake.
|
positive
|
There was absolutely nothing in this film that hadn't been done better in a hundred other films. It was barely worth the trouble of watching through to the end. Even the bad language sounded tired. Tom McCamus, a very fine actor, was particularly disappointing here.
|
negative
|
I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.<br /><br />I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. <br /><br />Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.<br /><br />And now I'm going to watch it all over again....
|
positive
|
Although I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.<br /><br />1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.<br /><br />2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)<br /><br />3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.<br /><br />4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the "maneuver" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!<br /><br />5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.<br /><br />6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.<br /><br />7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that the flight attendant.<br /><br />8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...<br /><br />9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.<br /><br />10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.<br /><br />11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.<br /><br />I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.
|
negative
|
Perhaps more than many films, this one is not for everyone. For some folks the idea of slowing down, reflecting and allowing things to happen in their own time is a good description of their personal hell. For others an approach like this speaks to some deep part of themselves they know exists, some part they long for contact with.<br /><br />I suppose it's a function of where I am in my own life these days, but I count myself in the camp of the latter group. I found the meditative pace of this film almost hypnotic, gently guiding me into some realm almost mythological. This is indeed a journey story, a rich portrayal of the distance many of us must travel if we are to come full circle at the end of our days.<br /><br />Much as been written of Mr Farnsworth's presentation of Alvin Straight, though I'm not sure there are words to express the exquisite balance of bemused sadness and wise innocence he conjured for us. Knowing now that he was indeed coming to terms with his own mortality as he sat on that tractor seat makes me wish I had had the opportunity to spend time with him before his departure. I hope he had a small glimmer of the satisfaction and truth he had brought to so many people, not just for "acting" but for sharing his absolute humanity with such brutal honesty.<br /><br />Given the realities of production economics, I'm not sure full credit has been given Mr Lynch for the courage he showed in allowing the story to develop so slowly. An outsider to film production, I nonetheless understand there are few areas of modern life where the expression "time is money" is so accurately descriptive. Going deep into our hearts is not an adventure that can be rushed, and to his credit Mr Lynch seems to have understood that he was not simply telling a story--he was inviting his viewers to spend some time with their own mortality. No simple task, that.<br /><br />If you'd like to experience the power of film to take introduce you to some precious part of yourself, you could do worse than spending a couple of hours with The Straight Story. And then giving yourself some time for the next little while simply listening to its echoes in the small hours of the night.
|
positive
|
How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."<br /><br />Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.<br /><br />What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.<br /><br />I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
|
negative
|
At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.<br /><br />The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.<br /><br />I know what your thinking "What The Hell is this?" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.<br /><br />As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.<br /><br />As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.<br /><br />As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.<br /><br />overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.
|
negative
|
This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.<br /><br />When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.<br /><br />One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
|
negative
|
There are often badly-matched couples (in the general sense of the term) -in Huston's movies :"African Queen" "Heaven knows Mister Allison" "roots of Heaven" "Misfits" ..."The Barbarian and the geisha" (check the title) is another good example,so to speak.It seems that Japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as "Sayonara" " the world of Suzie Wong" and "the teahouse of the August moon" bear witness. Huston's effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of "Susie " maybe).John Wayne perfectly fits in Ford's world ,in Huston's he's like a bull in a china shop.His Japanese partner is totally bland.Even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom.<br /><br />Only those utterly enamoured of Huston's every work need to choose this ,among all his other great movies around.
|
negative
|
The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.
|
negative
|
a great movie, with a rather unclear political message. it´s shot in a theatrical style, i.c. most of the action takes place inside. mayor surov and diana ashcroft seem equally suspicious of each other. emotions run high since the western tourists and business-people seem unwilling and unable to yield to the eastern-russian charm of the mayor, although he makes every effort to understand their point of view. the two opposite world-views are made pointedly clear, but the movie also shows that human emotions cannot be controlled by politics. its powerfully acted and has a high emotional impact for a 50s movie.
|
positive
|
Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger switch the goodie-baddie roles they held in "All the brothers were valiant". Taylor seems a bit uncomfortable in his bad-guy role but Granger plays his part perfectly. However the real hero in the story are the bison and the northwest. The film is perfectly made, with the atmosphere of the times wonderfully given. The direction is taut and although the film is no light-hearted entertainment it is, to my way of thinking a major film, unjustly ignored by the cognoscenti.
|
positive
|
Dennis Patrick plays a man who accidentally kills his daughter's boyfriend and then reveals his secret at a local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle), a bigot who is getting drunk there, at first takes it as a joke, but then the story is confirmed on the evening news. Instead of calling the cops or the like, Joe decides that, since the guy killed a hippie, they must be kindred spirits! He blackmails the man into becoming his pal. At first, the film seemed harsh and judgemental, but, as it revealed itself, it actually became quite a complex portrait of the current society. Yes, I think it does exaggerate a bit, but in amusing ways that don't really detract from the power of its messages. Susan Sarandon debuted in this film, and it's a shock to see how pretty she was around 23. Well worth seeing.
|
positive
|
'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.<br /><br />The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.<br /><br />The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.<br /><br />This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.<br /><br />All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later.
|
negative
|
what happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...<br /><br />was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...<br /><br />This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!
|
negative
|
Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):<br /><br />4.3 (out of 10)<br /><br />Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.<br /><br />Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.<br /><br />Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.
|
negative
|
This good-guy-vs-the-evil-tyrant story, set in 19th century Russia, may have been an attempt to extend Steve Reeves' career beyond those "Hercules" movies. However, despite the different costumes, it's still a "Hercules" movie with the usual stilted dialog, haphazard dubbing, and cardboard characters. On the other hand, there's lots of action, the pace rarely flags, and Reeves gets to do yet another one of those scenes where he's stripped to the waist, bound with ropes, and given a vigorous whipping which, needless to say, has little effect on his defiant character.
|
negative
|
Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.
|
positive
|
I must say THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN. i know that on this website it's received only negative reviews, but for once I'd like to be the good person who gives the worlds best movie a good review. i find the movie to be extremely funny, and it has the perfect mix of everything. it makes me feel all sorts of emotions when i watch it, and I can't get enough of it. the soundtracks brilliant. I LOVE IT, i understand why people may not love it as much as I do, but I don't understand how people could hate it. The movie is 100% brilliance. Blurred is amazing. i never realised that Aussie movies could be so good, and i also never realised I could watch one movie, so many times in a single day without getting sick of it. i think that everybody should watch it, whether its to get a feel of what life was like in the younger days, or if its to see what your in for when you reach the end of year 12.
|
positive
|
Sure, the history in this movie was "Hollywoodized"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance.
|
positive
|
The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well. <br /><br />I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.
|
negative
|
The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary. Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer. It is not very interesting to me. Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long. I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act. In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him. Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds. The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next. Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.
|
negative
|
This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.<br /><br />Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.<br /><br />One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.
|
negative
|
"One shot, one kill, no exceptions." A must see if you are into marines or snipers. two big thumbs up! Great overall storyline, great camera work, good drama, action, details, and more. Pretty close to the real thing. But this isn't a film to breakdown and pick out the editing faults. this is to sit back and have a good 99 mins. The plot has some depth but this movie isn't really about making you think. its about enjoying the sniper lifestyle and action. sniper 2 and 3 are pretty good follow ups but the first is still the best overall movie. Tom Berenger does a great job playing his character and showing the hidden side of the sniper life. the plain of dealing with all of the death. Must see for sniper fans.
|
positive
|
The Concorde ... Airport '79 starts in Washington where a man named Carl Parker (Macon (McCalman) contacts high profile TV news reporter Maggie Whelan (Susan Blakely) in order to hand secret documents over that prove his boss Kevin Harriosn (Robert Wagner) owner & president of Harrison Industries that develop weapons for the military has been illegally selling said weapons to foreign countries. However Maggie sees Carl assassinated & she barely escapes with her life, Maggie is to catch the Concorde to Moscow via Paris the next morning & intends to blow the whistle on Harrison who also happens to be her boyfriend which would ruin him. Determined to save himself he reprogrammes his hi-tech 'Buzzard' homing missile to intercept & destroy the Concorde during a test run killing all those on-board & destroying the documented evidence...<br /><br />Renamed Airport '80 - The Concorde for it's cinema & initial home video releases because it was released here in, well, 1980 rather than 1979 this last entry in the Airport franchise was directed by David Lowell Rich & is a notoriously bad film that was apparently laughed at during press & test screenings prompting Universal to promote the film as an action comedy. The first thing to say is that The Concorde ... Airport '79 is a really silly & downright daft film but on a purely entertainment basis I can think of a lot worse films to spend 108 minutes watching, I really can. I quite liked the absurd plot about a wealthy industrialist wanting to kill his girlfriend TV reporter before she can expose him as an illegal arms dealer but this guy doesn't do subtle & decides the best way to do it is to blow Concorde up with his own guided missile & then gets a Fench fighter pilot to try & shoot it down before finally sabotaging it so really there's three mini disaster flicks in one here as each time super pilot Joe Patroni manages to save the day. You know Joe Patroni played by George Kennedy appears in all four Airport films & goes from mechanic in the first to Concorde pilot extrodinaire in this, also I reckon he's a bit of a jinx since in the space of nine years he has been involved with four major aviation disasters. I think the real reason why the Airport series stopped here was because Patroni retired after this & the jinx was lifted. Some of the things that happen here are just silly, Patroni does barrel rolls, flies upside-down & out manoeuvre's a guided missile in a huge Concorde not to mention he crash lands it & fires flare guns out of his window to destroy the missile all while keeping a calm head. This guy is good, very good. Then there's the character's, there's a Saxophone playing black dude who smokes weed in the toilets, an old woman with a bladder problem & a team of Russian gymnasts with bad accents. Also, despite being almost shot down with a missile & then attacked by a Jet fighter the passengers of Concorde don't seem that bothered & happily get back aboard the following day, I don't know about you but after that I would probably find a safer way to travel & why do the police or authorities not question anyone? Why is the Concorde captain Patroni allowed to just go off & sleep with a French prostitute? The Concorde ... Airport '79 certainly isn't boring & is full of memorable moments & I was entertained in a way although it's far from a good film & modern audiences may not have the patience with it, hell I liked it for what it was in a daft way but it's no sort of classic.<br /><br />Even though Concorde no longer flies it's still quite a cool looking air-plane & there's plenty of footage of it here, the one used in The Concorde ... Airport '79 was the seventh one built. This Concorde was also the same aircraft which crashed after a tire bust caused a fuel tank to rupture and the leaking fuel catch fire on July 25th 2000, while taking off in Paris sadly resulting in the death of 109 passengers and crew on board and 4 people on the ground. When this aired on TV in the US in 1982 almost twenty minutes of new footage was included with most if not all of it being newly shot over two years after the original production had finished. I know the effects here take a bashing from most but I don't reckon they are too bad, when you consider this was made in the late 70's I think they come across quite well. The camera moves during effects shots, real footage of real planes is used rather than toy models which in my opinion would have looked a lot worse & I could certainly see what the makers were trying to do with limited funds & limited technology. In a strange way they are quite impressive actually without ever looking that good if you know what I mean. Probably the most action packed of all the Airport films there's missiles, exploding planes, daring crash landings, assassinations & a guy named Robert Palmer (no, not the singer) giving head a woman in a jacuzzi.<br /><br />The IMDb says this had a budget of about $14,000,000 which is actually more than I thought, maybe those special effects aren't so impressive after all. Shot in Utah, Washington, Los Angeles & France. The acting isn't great here, people don't look worried enough that they are about to die. Goerge Kennedy gets some bad one-liners while Robert Wagner plays the bad guy.<br /><br />The Concorde ... Airport '79 is fun for bad film enthusiasts everywhere & to be brutally honest I rather watch this entertaining mess of a film than some two hour Oscar nominated bore.
|
negative
|
I thought "What's New Scooby-Doo" was pretty bad (yes, I'm sorry to say I didn't like it), since Hanna-Barbera didn't produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. When I heard "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" was in the works, I thought it could be better. But when I saw a pic of how Scooby and Shaggy were going to appear, I knew this show was going to be bad, if not worse. I watched a few episodes, and believe me, it is just yet another "Teen Titans" or "Loonatics Unleashed"-wannabe. No longer are Scooby and Shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool, creepy monsters that rob banks. Now they are going after a typical super-villain whom wants to destroy the world. Shaggy and Scooby-Doo have become more brave, too. Also, since Shaggy IS NOT going to be a vegetarian in this series, Casey Kasem (whom actually IS a vegetarian), the original voice of Shaggy, will NOT voice Shaggy. He will only voice Shaggy if he doesn't eat meat, and that was just a stupid corporate-done change to update the franchise, as if the Internet jokes weren't enough. So Scott Menville (whom previously voiced Red Herring on "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo") voices Shaggy here. Believe me, the voice is REALLY BAD! It makes Shaggy sound like a squeaky 10-year-old, and I must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. However, Kasem DOES voice Shaggy's Uncle Albert, which is a sort of good thing. Scooby-Doo, on the other hand, does not look that well. He seems to have been designed to look more like the CGI Scooby-Doo from the live-action movies. Also, Scooby's Frank Welker voice (need I mention Brain the Dog again?) still hasn't improved. Robi, the robotic butler, is practically worse than Scrappy-Doo! He tries to be funny and does "comical" impressions and gives safety tips ("Remember kids, don't stand under trees during a thunderstorm!"), but it just doesn't fit into a Scooby-Doo cartoon. Again, the Hanna-Barbera sound effects are rarely used here. However, on one episode, "Lightning Strikes Twice," they use the "Castle thunder" thunderclaps during it, almost extensively! (Although they DO still use the newly-recorded thunder sound effects, too.) Scooby-Doo hasn't use "Castle thunder" sound effects since 1991. But my question is, why use "Castle thunder" on "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," while NOT use it on the direct-to-video movies or even on "What's New Scooby-Doo!" (Two episodes of WNSD used it, and it wasn't enough, unfortunately.) If WNSD and the DTV movies used it, then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. The day this show premiered, I watched the first episode, and it was SO bad I turned it off after only five minutes! To get my mind off of this poor show, I rented "Scooby-Doo, Pirates Ahoy!" which came out around the same time. And you know what? The "Pirates Ahoy" movie was actually BETTER than "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" (and even better than "What's New, Scooby-Doo!") And it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn't permanent to the franchise. The direct-to-video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs, thankfully. But, whether you loved or hated "What's New Scooby-Doo," I don't recommend it. But if you HATE the old series, THEN you'll love it! (Oh god, I hope the old Scooby-Doo cartoon stay better than this new $#*%!) Anyways, like WNSD, a really bad addition to the Scooby canon.
|
negative
|
When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.
|
negative
|
I am surprised that so many viewers didn't find all the symbolism in the movie.....it's what made the movie an incredible work of art! The story deals with some of the saddest content a movie could hold, yet it is one of the best movies I've ever seen because of the need for your own imagination and the brilliance in the storyline.<br /><br />If you will pay close attention, the message is there. The younger brother is killed by the stepfather. The older brother made up the story about the wagon flying as a way to deal with the pain of his brother's death. There are those that would argue why would he lie to his own children with the story. To me the answer is because he doesn't want to share such ugliness with his own children, or that he has blocked it out and replaced his memory of the horrific event with the thought of his brother flying away to safety. I've read some of the reviews that believe he was an only child and that he created the younger brother as an escape to deal with the abuse he suffered. Although this is an interesting idea - I love the imagination used to come up with that. I don't think he would have lied to his own children about having a little brother. But, I do find it plausible that he would have lied about his little brother's death. However, I like that idea of an ending much better than the notion that the movie had no symbolism at all.<br /><br />There are many different takes you can have on the movie, but if you take the movie at face value.....two brothers creating a wagon that flies to escape an abusive stepfather - you've missed the brilliance. The fact that I was able to see the subtle messages in the script were what made the movie so incredible to me. It requires your own thought process and your own imagination to make it work......dig deep when you watch it. You'll be amazed at the genius contained in the film. The only other movie I've seen as close to this in symbolism and subtle messages is Pleasantville.....but that's a comment for another movie!
|
positive
|
I must say that this has to be the best documentary I have ever seen in my life. I first say the movie at my friends house, and didn't get a chance to finish watching it. From that point on, I spent my free time trying to find the movie. I never found it, but on my birthday, my friend who knew I had the hardest time finding the movie,got it for me as present. Sean Penn does a great job of narrating the documentary. I loved how it told the story of each of the Z-Boys and the history of Dogtown. I have been to Venice and the surrounding area many times, and had never known what had taken place, until I saw the documentary. I didn't get a chance to see the actual movie, and I heard it was nowhere near what the documentary was. I don't know if I actually want to see the movie, but who knows.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie for the first time on a sick day from school about ten years ago. Compared to the made for Lifetime movies I usually watched, it became an instant though obscure favorite.<br /><br />I've seen it maybe twice since then. I think some parts are little cheesy, maybe the plot could use some more action.<br /><br />Nevertheless, it captures the fantasies and realities of children with uniqueness and warmth. The magical realism is on par with that of Amelie, and the heart with that of The Wonder Years. Despite the particular development of my tastes, I still find the subtle magic of this film, the lovable characters, and its simplicity enchanting.
|
positive
|
For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.<br /><br />THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!<br /><br />It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.<br /><br />Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE.
|
positive
|
The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character. ..The most beautiful film. If one is looking for serious depth, meaning and excellent performance then you have to get to watch this movie. excellent performances by the whole cast. Even more beautiful than A Beautiful Mind itself. Simply awesome!! I wish this movie entered the Oscars. I cried through the whole movie for the schizophrenic character.
|
positive
|
Both Disney and Bill Paxton did a fine job in conveying a story that is based in fact. You do not have to like the game of golf to appreciate the story of one man's struggle to overcome the odds. It could have been based on any sport or simply on any other situation which involves competition, though this one just happens to be related to Golf. The only problem I have with the story is that I would have liked to see a bit deeper into each of the main characters, esp. Mr. Ouimet. Mr. Francis Ouimet is a typical young man of his times, turn of the century America, where "class lines" are well delineated and woe be it to anyone who deigns to try to rise above his "class" standing. I did a bit of historical research and my biggest question was indeed answered, to my satisfaction. Although the circumstances are a bit different than those portrayed in the film, I came away with a feeling of content. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I believe you will too.
|
positive
|
This movie is so bad it's almost good. Bad story, bad acting, bad music, you name it. O.K., who are the jokers that gave this flick a '10'?
|
negative
|
This film is about a party put together by the high school "scary girl." Per the illogic of these sorts of films, she gets permission to hold the party at a house which used to be a crematorium, a dubious place long shut down and locked up. Apparently the history of this piece of property is one of those town secrets best left unspoken of among proper folk though the legend does get whispered about among the young.<br /><br />Why was this crematorium really shut down? What actually happened there in the past?<br /><br />I like these kill-kill-kill films of a supernatural nature as long as there is something in them not copied from a hundred other films. The highlights of this film are a petty theft "7-11" robbery by distracting the clerk with a vivid view, the changing clothes scene by the "good girl" witnessed by her jerk younger brother, the eventual demise of the ugly neighbor who hates the holiday, the spooky mirror scene and the concept of running water being a barrier against the supernatural; the best part of this film is when the possessed party sponsor dances to BAUHAUS in front of the fireplace; that scene rocks.
|
negative
|
They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.<br /><br />Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.<br /><br />It really can't get much worse than this awful film.
|
negative
|
Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.<br /><br />The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash! <br /><br />The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened…
|
negative
|
Two years after 'Airplane!' took off, Jim Abrahams, Jerry and David Zucker cast one of its stars - Leslie Nielsen - in this hilarious television series, a glorious take-off of old U.S. detective shows such as 'Dragnet'. Nielsen played Frank Drebin, America's answer to 'Inspector Clouseau'. It had the same style of humour as 'Airplane!'; clever visual gags in the background, unnoticed absurdities, and recurring characters such as Johnny the shoe-shine boy who seems to know everything about everything. Guest-stars ( including William Shatner! ) were killed off in the opening credits. 'Police Squad' was the first U.S. sitcom since 'Batman' to lack a laugh track. Many have lamented the fact that only six episodes were made, but I think it was about right. The concept could never have sustained a full 24-episode run. Five years later, 'Police Squad' made a successful transfer to the big screen, when the first of the 'Naked Gun' trilogy was released. Jim, Jerry, David, and Leslie had the last laugh.
|
positive
|
Awful, awful, awful.<br /><br />A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.<br /><br />I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?<br /><br />Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.
|
negative
|
The story is somewhat stilted, what with the main character's sudden reversals of fortune, but Leslie Howard and Bette Davis's portrayals of Philip Carey, the naïve obsessed lover and Mildred Rogers, the unworthy object of his affections, raise this film considerably above standard melodrama.<br /><br />Sensitive, cultured Philip, who for most of the picture is in bondage to first his infatuation and then his pity for Mildred is not unlike a character Howard was to play a few years later--Ashley Wilkes, the Southern gentleman too refined and decent to make it in the rough Reconstruction era. Philip in fact seems resigned to disappointment even before Mildred enters the picturehe doesn't even seem particularly surprised when his art teacher tells him he'll never make it as a painter. It is perhaps this passivity, these lowered expectations that makes him put up with the selfish Cockney waitress for as long as he does.<br /><br />Although Leslie Howard is memorable, today "Of Human Bondage" is mainly thought of as a Bette Davis picture, perhaps because of the well known story of how she had to fight Jack Warner to get the part of Mildred, and perhaps too because movie audiences tend to prefer characters with her sort of brash energy. Mildred may have a grating voice, but she also has the ethereal beauty of a stained glass angel, making it somewhat understandable why Philip let himself be strung along for as long as he did. Although man eating Mildred may at times seem one dimensional, she does evoke sympathy in the viewer from time to time as when she becomes ill and belatedly realizes that Philip is the only decent man who ever cared for her. One may also think she is on to something when she accuses Philip of looking down on her for not being "fine" enough. (The scene in which Philip and Norah dismiss romance magazines as trash for kitchen maids seems to confirm this).<br /><br />Most of the supporting characters are also effective, particularly Norah the sensible romance writer who loves Philip but knows she can never compete with Mildred and Sally who has Mildred's beauty and Norah's decency and emerges as the deserving woman Philip is rewarded with in the end. The only character I found hollow was Sally's eccentric, ale slurping aristocratic father who seems like a stock character from an earlier era.<br /><br />A classic that deserves it reputation.
|
positive
|
This is my FAVORITE ALL time movie. It used to be my Friday night movie with a pizza and bottle of wine when I was single. I first saw this movie with my aunt Brend and sister Chasity. I was in the 2nd grade. I fell in LOVE with Travolta and Sissy was my new best friend. I've read a lot of comments about why Bud left Sissy & how Sissy has to "learn to act" married. But let's go back and look at this for a second: SPOILER - My interpretation of the movie now, not when I was eight is this about Bud & Sissy's relationship takes a turn for the worst because she makes a fool of him at Gilley's riding the bull. They get in a huge fight. Bud tries to make Sissy jealous by asking Pam to dance. Sissy then thinks two wrongs will make a right and Wes asks her if "she needs any help". They're all on the dance floor acting like fools when Bud asks Pam, "when are you going to take me home and rape me?" Pam answers: "When ever you're ready Cowboy". Bud then goes home with Pam to her condo in downtown Houston. Which Daddy has bought for her with his oil money and "all that that implies". Bud is the one who cheats on Sissy. Sissy is waiting for Bud when he returns home the next day. Sissy is the ONE who leaves Bud. Then, it's up to Bud to prove to Sissy that he is a real "cowboy" and win her back. <br /><br />Anyways, that's my interpretation. Everyone has their I'm sure! I love this movie.<br /><br />And believe it or not, I got myself a REAL cowboy! I love him too! :)
|
positive
|
Another fabulous movie from Catherine Breillat, this time about the difficulties of shooting a sex scene in a movie. Using comedy a new genre for Breillat we get a backstage view of filmmaking but in documentary style. The character who plays the director in the movie is based on Breillat, the sex scene in question is taken from her earlier film A Ma Soeur' as is the main teenage actress. But the film, like all of Breillat's work, is not entertainment alone. It is peppered with philosophical observations on the nature of sexuality as well as demonstrating a devotion to purity' (as opposed to pornography) that is a cornerstone of Breillat's work and a devotion to real emotion. We see the director character harangue the young lead actress and actor to bring the best out in them, hypnotising them into the parts they need to play, bringing out part of themselves that the director can see in them but they cannot see in themselves until they achieve the heights of acting that she demands of them. She makes meaningful movies, not titillation, but she shows the work that is needed to produce this, and so gives us insights both into the (decidedly French) film making process and the psychology of male female sexuality.
|
positive
|
If they gave out awards for the most depraved and messed-up movies in the world, Japanese cinema would clean up: their exploitation cinema wipes the floor with most other contenders, the most extreme examples being absolutely jaw-dropping exercises in bad taste, nauseating gore, freakish weirdness, and misogynistic sex.<br /><br />Guts of a Beauty is a prime example of such whacked out filth, offering discerning viewers just over an hour of full-on debauchery and gratuitous violence topped off with some very insane J-splatter goodness.<br /><br />The film opens with a young woman named Yoshimi, whose search for her missing sister has led her into the hands of some nasty yakuza, who proceed to rape her and shoot her full of strong dope called Angel Rain. After the gangsters have finished having their fun with the poor woman, she manages to escape and flees to a nearby hospital where sexy psychologist Hiromi (Megumi Ozawa) attempts to help. However, the distraught and confused Yoshimi ends up throwing herself off the hospital roof, turning into a water melon as she hits the ground (at least that what it looked like to me!).<br /><br />Seeking to avenge Yoshimi's death, Hiromi lures Higashi, a member of the yakuza, to her office, and, whilst jacking him off, hypnotises him into attacking his fellow gang members. After Higashi goes slash happy with a knife in the yakuza HQ, he is severely beaten and stabbed, forced to tell of his meeting with Hiromi, and then hacked into itty bitty pieces.<br /><br />The psychologist is then captured by the gang, subjected to a spot of forced buggery (whilst simultaneously being forced to give head to a yakuza slut), and injected with Angel Rainafter which she promptly carks it. The gangsters then plonk her body in the boot of their car, along with the remains of Higashi, ready for disposal.<br /><br />Before they can ditch the corpses, however, the super dope has an unexpected effect on Hiromi: she returns from the dead as a hermaphroditic monster with a toothy penis and a ravenous gash, and, hellbent on revenge, sets about killing the yakuza one-by-one; this leads to some memorable scenes of outrageously gory splatter, including a messy head squish, a man being suffocated by the monster's oozing vagina, and a woman being screwed to death by its giant, gnashing phallus.<br /><br />As you can most likely tell from the above synopsis, this is some crazy, screwed up stuff, and probably not to the taste of most sane people, but for those weirdos who have long tired of mainstream cinema and are already well versed in Asian excess, Guts Of A Beauty should prove to be delightfully diverting and deviant fun.<br /><br />7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.
|
positive
|
This movie was extremely boring. It should least not more than 15 minutes. The images of child and animal being killed were little bit disturbing.<br /><br />Usually I don't write comments but this one was so bad having so many good and excellent comments. I think in this case we are one step closer to honest assessment of this title.<br /><br />What more can I say? I fall asleep during this movie 3 times. It was about 4 hours after I had woken up from 8 hours long sleeping period. I think it is the point itself.<br /><br />There is no dialog between characters except maybe 2 sentences at the very end.<br /><br />When you fall asleep once watching it do not try to rewind and catch up because you will fall asleep again.
|
negative
|
<br /><br />This movie is full of references. Like "Mad Max II", "The wild one" and many others. The ladybug´s face it´s a clear reference (or tribute) to Peter Lorre. This movie is a masterpiece. We´ll talk much more about in the future.
|
positive
|
Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.<br /><br />The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.<br /><br />The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.<br /><br />The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.<br /><br />I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.<br /><br />He seems to have something to say.
|
negative
|
One of the most pleasant surprises of this early 3-strip Technicolor short was that a ballet dancer that appears here was named Maria Gambarelli! I half wondered if Blake Edwards was naming the character played by Elke Sommer in A Shot in the Dark after this now-forgotten performer (though the spelling of the Sommer character's surname was actually Gambrelli). I watched this on YouTube mainly to see an early Judy Garland appearance as we watch her in profile with her two older sisters singing "La Cucaracha". That was the highlight for me which otherwise showed some dances (like that of Ms. Gambarelli) that were enjoyable and some lame comedy between Andy Devine as a great bull-fighter (yeah, right!) and Buster Keaton as a bull owner who provides one that is obviously a man in animal costume. Only funny part of those two is when they cry-with Buster providing handkerchief to "bull"-during the sad part of "La Cucaracha". Also lame was seeing Ted Healy without his stooges dealing with a crasher who keeps mistaking Healy for other movie stars. (Healy himself didn't know Zeppo had left The Marx Brothers since he puts "Four" between "The" and "Marx"!) Speaking of a Marx, it was interesting seeing Harpo without his wig though he is wearing a hat to hide his bald head. Also interesting was seeing Ida Lupino among the cowgirls in the beginning though I also recognized Toby Wing from her part in Murder at the Vanities last year (at least when announcer Pete Smith identified her). Oh, and Smith himself wasn't funny with his wise-guy narration. Other famous stars you may or may not recognize are also in cameos and not all are M-G-M contract players either! So with all that said, La fiesta de Santa Barbara is worth a look for anyone curious about Judy Garland's early film appearances or the early use of 3-strip Technicolor.
|
negative
|
I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".<br /><br />Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.<br /><br />But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.
|
negative
|
I've seen this movie at theater when it first came out some years ago and really liked it a lot. But i still wanted to see it again this year to check if it is still good compared to movies coming out now, and i wan tell it's one the best movies i've ever seen in my life !!!!!!!!!!!!! <br /><br />What you need to know is that you don't have to miss any minute of this movie, if you don't completely follow the action you will get lost and you will not understand the end. <br /><br />The end is what makes this movie so good, you can't expect it.<br /><br />Congratulations to the Producer !
|
positive
|
This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.<br /><br />I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.<br /><br />Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".<br /><br />In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.<br /><br />There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.
|
negative
|
It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.
|
negative
|
12 year old Arnald Hillerman accidentally kills his older brother Eugene. His feelings are arrested by the fact that his family can not interact with him (or feel it is not the right thing to do). His ONLY refuge is his grandfather, who is the ONLY one who seems to have compassion on him. The Realism will captivate "true-2-life" movie lovers, but will not satisfy those that desire action & thrills.
|
positive
|
sorry, sorry but sorry. nice, very nice production, very nice actors, also funny. But, this type of the movies with a dog (Rex German, Gery-Jerry American) with a private detectives, with a pretty rich woman???????????????????????? Hello producer, how many movies we have out there with the same plot?????????? What do u have on your minds when you make the scenes like dog having a pupu. Or any king of that dog activities????? Micro chips who can make you rich? Micro chips who wort a fortune? There is three master chips, wow? And the creator of the chips can't make the same chips again? Hello, wake up. can give us something smarter than that? Best, D
|
negative
|
A few years ago I saw this remake of the sixties classic with the Mini Coopers for the first time and I remember liking it a lot. Now, about two years later it was shown on television and I just wanted to know whether I would still like it as much as when I saw it in the cinema. Well, the answer is yes.<br /><br />The movie is about a team of robbers that will do one final job in Venice, Italy. The plan is flawless and the execution perfect. They escape and won't have to work for the rest of their lives. But there is one problem they didn't take into account: Someone within their own ranks doesn't like to split the loot, but wants to keep it all for himself, even when that means he will have to kill the rest of the crew. But all but one survive and they are out for revenge. One year later, in Los Angeles this time, the surviving team members create a smart and devious plan to steal back the gold and get their revenge on the traitor...<br /><br />The story on itself is of course not very original, since this is a remake of the original 1969 movie, but it has plenty of goodies to offer to make you forget about that. This is a typical heist / action movie but it certainly is one of the better ones in its kind. The action is very nice, the landscapes and Venice are real eye-candy, the story is OK and the special effects are stunning. Even the acting is very good, something which you'll not often see in an action movie. I must admit that I really liked what I saw and I give this movie a well deserved 7.5/10.
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.