review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Funny thing. Charlie Sheen, Donald Sutherland, Sam Waterston, and Stephen Lang have all had incredible performances. Who can forget Sheen as the callow naif in Wall Street, or Sutherland as the the cynical Korean War surgeon in MASH? Waterston and Lang have both also had successful TV and film careers (Law and Order, Killing Fields, De Niro's Tribeca, etc). So what in the world would any of these fine actors be doing in a stink bomb like this?<br /><br />Shadow Conspiracy's plot of a Washington coup d'etat is not really that bad, unoriginal maybe but not that bad. Sure it's been done (Seven Days in May - a fine film!), but with a little tweaking, it could still have been entertaining. <br /><br />Shadow Conspiracy's main problem is in the execution. Early in the film Sheen, political strategist extreme, ridiculously and implausibly resolves a potential public relations gaffe by blackmailing a Congressman. Later, gunplay with Lang's mute hitman tearing up half of what is supposed to be Georgetown is explained on the news as "gang wars". Has anyone remotely associated with this film ever lived a day in Washington? Sheen is about 20 years too young, way way too young, to be so senior in a White House Administration. Sheen's response to avert a political crisis is so ladened with false machismo, he looks as though he attended the David Hasselhoff school of acting. And when was the last time gang wars spread to Georgetown? We're talking about a section of Washington where citizens voted against having a Metro stop so that they could maintain their exclusivity.<br /><br />I agree with another reviewer that this film would have been unbearable without the fast forward button. I taped it off HBO a year ago and then took 3 separate viewings to plod through it.<br /><br />In summary: Don't buy this film. Don't even rent this film. If you see it at Blockbuster, run away as fast as you can.
|
negative
|
This is a terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!
|
negative
|
It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived "Dirty Dozen" TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).<br /><br />I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in "The Green Berets" pretty much sums it up.<br /><br />Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head. <br /><br />I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, it's a "1" right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than "The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission".<br /><br />Awful - avoid!!!!
|
negative
|
I'm giving it a three instead of the lower number it deserves because of its history. A full-length movie made by high school students! It shows, too, but that's part of the charm and appeal. Get ahold of some of the stuff George Lucas did at UCLA; this is better. Maybe due to being a group effort.<br /><br />A monster made of toxic waste and too much garbage--these kids were way ahead of their time!--starts ravaging the town of Milpitas during a high school dance. The monster destroys randomly, leaving garbage and smelly footprints.<br /><br />The movie has local TV and radio people, the Milpitas mayor, the Samuel Ayer High School principal, and a whole bunch of the high school students and their parents, not to mention the mayor's daughter as the ingénue.<br /><br />Dumb? Yeah! Fun? Yeah! Great screen writing? C'mon, they're untrained high schoolies! Copy that comment for the acting, cinematography, directing, et cetera.<br /><br />Milpitas is right next to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley; maybe one of the graphics geniuses there will update the video somehow. Now THERE's a challenge.
|
negative
|
This movie is hilarious! I watched it with my friend and we just had to see it again. This movie is not for you movie-goers who will only watch the films that are nominated for Academy Awards (you know who you are.)I won't recap it because you have seen that from all the other reviews.<br /><br />"Whipped" is a light-hearted comedy that had me laughing throughout. It doesn't take itself too seriously and should be watched with your friends, not your girlfriend. It won't win any awards, but it just has to be watched to be appreciated. True, some of the jokes are toilet humor, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Everyone can use some of it sometimes. Some people need to lighten up and see "Whipped" for what it is, not what it isn't.<br /><br />****1/4 out of *****.
|
positive
|
This (allegedly) based-on-a-true story TV movie concerns a woman on the run from the FBI and a *seriously* stupid guy.<br /><br />First, we have Roger Paulson (Tim Matheson), a "regular guy" type with a mind-numbing job, an ex-wife, a kid he hardly ever gets to see and some cats.<br /><br />Next, there is "Elaine-Lisa-you name it" (Tracy Pollan), a smart, sexy, good looking woman whose tongue would burst into flame if she ever told the truth.<br /><br />Roger and Lisa meet when she answers a lonely-hearts ad. Roger is one of these poor saps who can't seem to handle living alone, so after his wife dumped him, he places his ad.<br /><br />It doesn't take long for Roger to figure out that Lisa is *not* a good person, but he has no idea how to get rid of her. He doesn't even have enough sense to change the locks on his apartment door after he throws her out.<br /><br />Go ahead and watch this if you don't have anything else to do.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.<br /><br />In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.<br /><br />Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.<br /><br />The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."<br /><br />If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).
|
negative
|
I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox
|
negative
|
I was lucky enough to see a test screening of 'El Padrino' a couple months ago in Santa Monica. I was blown away. You don't see films like this anymore. In the vein of Scosese, Chapa deftly tells the tragic story of Kilo as he maneuvers the tough streets of LA to rise above the ranks to become a drug lord of Escobarian proportions. The characters are complex and conflicted. The emotions are real. The action is fast and furious. The stunts are expansive. And Tilly is HOT. She hasn't looked this good since her 'Bound' days. I'd recommend this to anyone. It's a fantastic homage to the epic action films of the late 80s and early 90s. And to all the naysayers out there
watch it again; you obviously had your eyes closed the first time. Congrats to all involved in the film. I'm counting the days until the sequel is released. Anyone have a date on that?
|
positive
|
I'm sorry, but "Star Wars Episode 1" did not do any justice to Natalie Portman's talent (and undeniable cuteness). She was entirely underused as Queen Amidala, and when she was used, her makeup was frighteningly terrible. For "Anywhere But Here," she sheds her god-awful makeup and she acts normally. And not only can she act good, she looks good doing it. I'm a bit older than she (she's only 18), and I have little or no chance of meeting her, but hey, a guy is allowed to dream, right?<br /><br />Even though Susan Sarandon does take a good turn in this movie, the film belongs entirely to Portman. I've been a watcher of Portman's since "Beautiful Girls" (where she was younger, but just as cute). There's big things for her in the future - I can see it.
|
positive
|
Was a college acting class exercise filmed and released as a movie? The formulaic posturing and stylized drivel of a "horror" soap opera for people who don't like horror films but wish to be able to tell that friends that, yes, they did see a horror movie. It even features soap opera music.<br /><br />Do books falling off library shelves scare you? Do doors shutting terrify you? Then this flick is for you. Have you ever been kidnapped? Yeah, most of us have. When you were raped, was it simply ignored, because the rapist was the cool kid? What's scary is not this movie but this filmmaker's view of the world. <br /><br />And then the little twists aren't even original. This is a film for people who've never seen a horror film before, who don't want to see one now, and who want to see another flick about everyone conspiring against the weird kid.
|
negative
|
I enjoyed the acting in this movie. Except for the sister. She reminded me of Janice on Friends. I could never quite believe she was anything but obnoxious. <br /><br />My main problems with the movie were the anticlimatic ending and the execution scene with the sister and brother-in-law. The guy falling out of the exploding car? Maybe if his hand had been blown off and he ran to the mute for help and she kissed him and rushed him to a hospital, maybe then I could have gone for the ending. I think somebody needed to die in the execution scene. Mainly the brother-in-law. He was such a pain in the ass anyway. Or maybe the sister needed to accidentally kill the guy who saved the mute. I could have even bought into the brother-in-law killing the hero and the ending being the two sisters being put in snuff films. <br /><br />It is worth watching again and as I always say, it is much easier to be a reviewer instead of an author.
|
positive
|
I never saw the original 1954 version with Judy Garland, so have no means of comparison. Also, it's been some years, but I found this tale neither gripping nor its romance captivating. The movie tells the story of two lovers whose musical careers are headed in opposite directions. John Norman Howard is a worn out, disillusioned rock star on the decline, embarking upon a romance with a fresh, talented new singing sensation, Esther Hoffman. Her dramatic success only serves to emphasize his decline.<br /><br />The lead actors, Kris Kristofferson and Barbra Streisand, are adequate in their roles, but neither their chemistry nor the plot left much of a mark with me. The film is noteworthy to me for only one aspect, Streisand's beautiful rendition of the Oscar winning song 'Evergreen'. She truly has a powerful and magnificent voice.
|
negative
|
Poor old Robert Taylor. Other than THE FEDS, nothing much has gone his way - this almost-shocker is a wasteful ninety minutes and not much more. It's one of those cheesy detective-crime flicks with the narrative of the lead character the whole way through - usually that's reserved for comedies these days but this film takes itself way too seriously! A pity; Australian films, particularly in the 2000-01 periods, have been of exceptional quality overall - but I suppose there have got to be a few misses. Why even make a film like this, that obviously isn't going to be any good?
|
negative
|
There are two points I need to make clear right at the beginning. First of all we all know what this year's Oscar's were REALLY all about this year. It was the Academy's way of showing people that they are no racist,and never have been. They wanted to clear all preconceived notions about themselves. Secondly, it's kinda pointless to make remarks about the show, because really, what difference will it make? But, it's fun to write about it. This is the year I became fed-up with the Oscar's! I will never watch the show again. Every year they do something wrong. Before Crowe wins for "Gladaitor" when they real winner should of been Ralph Fiennes for "Sunshine". If you haven't seen this movie yet, watch it and you'll agree. "Eyes Wide Shut" when released receieved no nominations. And as far as this year goes, well, the bad choices were all over the place! Baz Lurhmann gets no "Best Director" nomination! Are you joking!! "A Beautiful Mind" is up for "Best Make-up"???? "Training Day" gets nominated?? The movie was awful, and it seemed like Washington didn't even turn in a performance, all he proved was, he knows how to use four letter words! That's what h won the award for! Take away the language and I bet he was almost playing himself! I liked "Gosford Park", I really did, but why 7 nominations? And how on Earth could they not give it too Altman! I mean, c'mon, if there just giving the award to people to clear up any bad feelings, what about Altman? The man has been in the public's eye for 32 years now and no Oscar! There were many, many things that bothered me about this year's Oscar's, but, I'll live with it, as long as I never have to watch another show again! The highpoint ( and the ONLY one) of the show was when Woody Allen made his first appearance ever to the award show. That will go down as one of the greatest moments in he history of the show.
|
negative
|
I just saw this movie last night, and after reading all the reviews I expected a good, emotional sports film. What I got was something clichéd and boring. Yes, I thought it was boring. I saw the all-star getting hurt long before the game. I figured maybe they'd wait for him to collapse until, ya know, the game before the "big one" but I guess the first game is good enough.<br /><br />The parental relationships were also very clichéd, with the dominating drunk father (I will say McGraw impressed me, however), and the boy who wants to stay and help his (ailing?) mother.<br /><br />I especially liked the random girls (Melissa and Maria) who were in the movie for all of 5 minutes, and placed there simply to get the football boys some action off the field. I thought "ok, now how does this work into the plot again?" Maybe I missed the point, beyond "Well they play football in a town that loves it so the girls throw themselves at their feet" point.<br /><br />The sports action had some good points, but most of it was so rushed! I think the first game lasted longer than the montage of the entire playoffs! And I wasn't so sure about the continuity of the winding-down clock in the final game.<br /><br />I guess I could see this movie winning the ESPY for best sports film if it was the only one released. Honestly though, I found it to be a boring movie full of people sickeningly-obsessed with the pigskin. For a better football film, see Remember the Titans.
|
negative
|
The Matador is a strange film. Its main character Julian, played with an unusual mix of charm and unbalance by Brosnan, is not your typical hero. Julian is a hit man who is experiencing a late mid-life crises. Having spent 22 years in the profession of cold blooded murder he now finds himself stressed out and desperately lonely. And so, after a chance meeting at a bar with Danny (Greg Kinnear), he latches on and begins a halting, awkward friendship. Danny, the quintessential nice guy, is dealing with some stuff in his own life and, truth be told, could use a friend as well. The two make an unexpected connection, and Danny sticks around to hear Julian's story, even after learning the "unsavory" truth about Julian's work.<br /><br />Matador approaches a subject not completely unheard of in cinema, the anti-hero assassin (films like 'Assassins' and 'Grosse Pointe Blank' come to mind). But Matador differs in several key ways. First of all, the killing and gore is implied but never really shown in any detail, meaning that if you are an action movie buff looking for an adrenaline rush this movie will probably disappoint you. And second, unlike most anti-hero films, Matador makes no attempt to show remorse and redemption from its main character. Julian's job is simply presented as an 'it is what it is' kind of thing. This is unusual, given that 99.99% of us would consider killing for money horrific. And yet this unorthodox approach is perhaps what makes the film feel authentic. Although we don't like to admit it, almost anything could become mundane after we did it long enough, maybe even murder. Did Julian's victims deserve to die? Who is paying to have people killed? Who knows. The movie never deals with these questions. The focus is on Julian and his stumbling shuffle into a genuine friendship. If you read about someone like Julian in the paper you would have a passing thought that people like him should be ripped out of society like a cancer, but forced to watch his life you are drawn in by his intense humanity. Sympathy for the devil, I guess.<br /><br />Brosnan's take on Julian is well done and deeply unsettling. He doesn't completely divorce himself from his James Bond good looks and smooth charm, but rather just adds disturbing quirks into the mix. Weird or crude remarks in the middle polite conversations and sudden shifts from suave charm to childish tantrums and sad desperate pleas for acceptance. It keeps you guessing about his grasp on his sanity and how it will affect those around him. It's a bit like listening to a piano player that occasionally and unexpectedly hits a wrong note while he plays, but it works. The films only other major role, that of Danny, is not nearly as meaty. Kinnear turns in a solid if unspectacular performance as a regular Joe with a regular Joe life and problems.<br /><br />The film doesn't really have any huge shocks or M Night Shyamalan twists, but I wasn't able to guess the ending and it felt satisfying. It doesn't have any deep philosophical or spiritual insights and yet it felt very human. And it didn't have any heart pounding car chases or gun battles and yet I thought the pacing was well done and I was never bored. Maybe the only real message here is about the human need to reach out and make connections with one another, and how those needs have no moral prerequisites. Even a murderer needs friends, and even good people can be friends with bad people. It's a comment on the strange, random world we live in. A good film; worth seeing.
|
positive
|
**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).<br /><br />The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.<br /><br />This leads to... well, nothing.<br /><br />They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.<br /><br />Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.<br /><br />The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.<br /><br />Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.
|
negative
|
This movie does have some great noirish/neorealist visuals, and it tells a story that is refreshingly free of Hollywood's sugar-coating, which was only possible because it was essentially an independent foreign film. But some of the scenes go on for much too long (the wedding, especially), and I found the exaggerated acting and unrealistic dialog to be more fit for the stage than for the silver screen.<br /><br />The dialog was particularly distracting, and it seemed to get worse as the movie went on. Most of the characters were either Italian-Americans or Italian immigrants living in New York in the twenties and thirties, but their dialog sounded like they were practicing lines for a Shakespeare play while they mixed cement and laid bricks. Toward the end I was laughing, and not because the filmmakers wanted me to. I guess the stilted poetry could be defended by saying that the characters would have been speaking Italian, and the dialog is a literal translation of how they would really talk. But it absolutely did not work for me.<br /><br />Another line of dialog made me laugh for a different reason: the main character's son, born and raised in New York in the 1920's, suddenly picks up a lovely lilting British accent. I'm only guessing this had something to do with the fact that the movie was made in England.<br /><br />I give this movie an 'A' for effort and intention, but a considerably lower grade for execution.
|
negative
|
The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.
|
negative
|
Adventures in Dinosaur City, though a creative idea, was a nauseatingly atrocious attempt at filmmaking. Being sucked into a TV and into a new world is interesting. Three teens obsessively enthralled with half-animated dinosaurs is not. Don't waste the time or the brain power to see this sure loser. I wouldn't even let my kids watch it.
|
negative
|
Interesting premise; interestingly worked out; the strongest feature of this film is the emotional tension of the astronaut who knows a truth, but is unable to convey it to others. Overlook the weaknesses and just enjoy the movie, but be prepared for a certain level of suspense.
|
positive
|
... Bad at being intentionally bad...<br /><br />This little gem shot straight onto the MST3k big screen. While it's obvious the movie isn't trying to be taken seriously (Hopefully that their goal, anyway...), the movie is still plain bad. Hell, it makes Leprechaun In Space look big budgeted...<br /><br />In short: Paint my muscle car prune colored!
|
negative
|
I have just written a comment to "ACES HIGH" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says "it is a complete waste of time". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their "villains" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.<br /><br />Talking about "cruel actions" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with "historical hindsight". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch "ACES HIGH" (1976) or that wonderful classic "THE DAWN PATROL" (1938) you shall not be disappointed.
|
negative
|
this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!
|
negative
|
If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.<br /><br />SPOILERS - Nothing happens! <br /><br />A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end. <br /><br />SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)<br /><br />Utter rubbish.
|
negative
|
This film lingered and lingered at a small movie theater in town, and the word-of-mouth buzz got me to see it. A comedy about disabled people - the subject matter keeps lots of people away from a funny and heart-warming film.
|
positive
|
OK, I am a sucker. I loved it. I had no expectations and had them all fulfilled. It was a terrible movie. I loved it. I have managed to wear out a DVD from over use. No one can understand my obsession. I can't either, to tell the truth. For those who have seen the movie this will come as no surprise, but I asked the clerk at the video store if I could buy a copy and I could because there were two in stock and only one had been check out and over half of the time it had been to me.<br /><br />Now, the movie is terrible. The special effects are terrible. The acting is terrible, but I loved it. The actors are silly, the plot silly, the goofs numerous--like being able to see through the monsters, The "arachnids" looked like they were made out of plastic garbage bags (maybe they were), There was light underground, TNT wasn't deafening, etc...<br /><br />You must really love B-Movies to get any enjoyment out of this...alcohol helps enormously for others.
|
positive
|
Don't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and Gösta Ekman.<br /><br />Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.
|
negative
|
Ah, how refreshing to see a vision of 18th century England complete with mud, the pox and gibbets... and accompanied by a delightful techno soundtrack to boot. This is the story of downtrodden highwayman Plunkett (Robert Carlisle) and Gentleman-fallen-on-hard-times Captain Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller), and how they get together and rob the aristo pigs. Plunkett is a hard nut, but MaCleane is far too polite for that, and thus becomes 'the gentleman highwayman'. He falls in love with Lady Rebecca (Liv Tyler), (who to be frank is the only weak part of the whole shebang) and wants to impress her.<br /><br /> The costumes are fantastic. Big, colourful, historically innacurate beautiful togs. Alan Cummings gets all the best threads, and the best lines as Lord Rochester, sporting a very non-18th century eyebrow piercing. The music shifts between swooping glorious choirs and thumping bass-laden techno, which doesn't jarr as you think it should do in a historical film. The script is fast-moving and peppered with modern-day colloquialisms; Merchant Ivory, this is not. There are hilarious parts, disgusting parts, sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-and-nibble-your-fingernails parts, but the whole thing chugs along and is wonderfully entertaining throughout. This is cheer-in-the-cinema stuff. Unmissable.
|
positive
|
This film is bad. It's filled with glaring plot holes, characters who are ruled by stupidity, bad acting and above all, a poor script which has been done before in many, many films, only better. I feel sorry for Donald Sutherland, I just hope he had to do this film rather than wanted to! Miss it.
|
negative
|
This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.<br /><br />The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.<br /><br />The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.<br /><br />Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.
|
negative
|
This has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. The idea of a typical family leaving everything behind to live in the wilderness. When mom and dad both lose there jobs, not to mention they have green slime in their bathtub. They decide it's in their families best interest to move to Oregon. Once there everything goes wrong. An interesting cast of characters compliment this movie. Including a young Molly Ringwald,this a movie I would definetly recommend.
|
positive
|
I had seen this film many years ago and it had made a lasting impression on me. Alas, I have hardened to many films over the years and did not expect to be impressed by 'Kalifornia' upon watching again recently. I am pleased to say that it is every bit as unnerving and watchable as it was ten or so years ago.<br /><br />There are two things which really give this movie its power. The first is its cast. We have a staggeringly disturbing turn by a young Brad Pitt as Early Grace. Knowing Pitt, as we all do, as one of the most enduring heart-throbs Hollywood has ever had, it is refreshing to see him play such a vile, unattractive character. Pitt pulls the show off without resorting to white-trash cliché or parody, and manages to remain genuinely terrifying throughout the movie.<br /><br />Juliette Lewis is equally impressive as Grace's tragic girlfriend, playing the character like a ten year old girl with a forty year old's life experience. Lewis manages to evoke pity (for her character's station in life) as well as contempt (for her naivety), but she underpins her performance with the kind of subtlety rarely seen by an actor so young. Personally, I think it's a tragedy that neither Pitt nor Lewis were nominated for any awards for their performances here.<br /><br />David Duchovony and Michelle Forbes are both perfectly cast as the yuppy couple who unwittingly end up travelling across the US with Pitt and Lewis. Duchovony is aptly geeky and naive, and Forbes seems emphatically cynical and shut-off, but both actors manage to convincingly portray their characters' changes as they are equally intrigued, repulsed and strangely attracted to Pitt.<br /><br />The fine casting and uniformly brilliant acting aside, this film really grabs us by the proverbial balls through its flawless pacing. At the time 'Kalifornia' was released, Hollywood was releasing a slew of nice-character-turns-out-to-be-psychotic movies ('Single White Female', 'Pacific Heights', 'The Hand That Rocks The Cradle', 'Deceived', 'Sleeping With The Enemy' etc). Most of these movies followed the same formula, the only variation being the nature of the relationship between good guy and bad guy. 'Kalifornia' doesn't really stray too far from this territory, but its first two acts are the perfect example of the slow-boil thriller, and we are kept on the very edge of our seats waiting for the tide to turn.<br /><br />When the penny does drop, and Pitt is let loose to play the maniacal bad guy, the film shifts gears completely and the last twenty minutes don't quite live up to rest of the movie. That said, the action is thick and fast and the resolution is suitable cold. The fight is over, but the scars will always be there.<br /><br />Much of the narration (provided by a somewhat whiny, pre X-files Duchovony) is a tad contrived. Of course, it's meant to be from the book the Duchovony's journalist character has written, so one could argue that the self-conscious narration is meant to be a nod to the kind of sensationalised style in which most journalists write.<br /><br />The film is largely a success and is certainly a cut above 90% of the thrillers of the past twenty years. Highly recommended, but not for the weak of stomach or mind. This film is disturbing on more than one level. But then, it's meant to be.
|
positive
|
I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.<br /><br />For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!<br /><br />The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...<br /><br />The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.<br /><br />Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.<br /><br />This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home.
|
positive
|
Thursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall<br /><br />Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is "one of the best scripts" he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.
|
negative
|
This film show peoples in the middle of the hottest 2 days in Austria. It shows people humiliating other peoples and being cruel to other peoples. It show the inability of people to communicate or talk with others.<br /><br />In the screening I have attended people were leaving in the middle because they could no longer watch the film. And rightly so. Because the film is not and easy one to watch. It has a very depressing message and there isn't any moment of mercy in the film. It is a very cruel movie, not for everyone's taste. You can not speak of terms of enjoyment from this film. It grips you in your throat and never let go and in the end you simply feels breathless because of its intensity.<br /><br />I can not "recommend" or "not recommend" this film. You should make your own mind based on what I have said earlier. Just be aware that this is not a regular film and it is not for everyone's taste.
|
positive
|
Why does the poster & artwork say "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time. SCREEN INTERNATIONAL" when it was a quote of the French distributor REPORTED by Screen International (an influential film trade publication). See www.screendaily.com/ScreenDailyArticle.aspx?intStoryID=39811 which reads:<br /><br />"Pretty Pictures has acquired all French-speaking rights to Neil Thompson's Clubbed ....James Velaise, president of Pretty Pictures, said: "Clubbed is one of the best UK indie films I have seen in a very long time.""<br /><br />Isn't this rather misleading? The distributor is bound to say it's good. Are the other quotes real?
|
negative
|
I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen!
|
positive
|
I've spent a year deployed in Iraq, and amongst the hundreds of movies I've seen here was this little gem called Vampire Assassin. Judging from the cover (African-American with corn-rows with a curved blade, leather coat and the demeanor of a badass), I expected a Blade rip-off. Fair enough.<br /><br />So I pop it in and observed a borderlined overweight African-American with no blade, no cornrows and, well, nothing at all really except...I don't know. If you've read any of these other reviews, you get the gist of the flick. It sucks. Bad. Really bad.<br /><br />I don't know if it was the Highlander-esquire lightning after killing an immortal vampire, or the karate-kick sound effects for camera zooms, or the twenty dollar budget on props, or the "ok, we have 90 minutes to film this before we're caught filming in a Johnson & Johnson parking lot," or the martial arts that is as exciting and fast-paced as two old people having sex, or the 7th grade acting talent, or the eccentric Asian Master who's either senial or on acid, or what, but the movie manages to force you to question your existence. And that's awesome.<br /><br />Not many movies can be so bad that your head will explode like Scanners. If you heckle (or MST3K) with your friends, this is the flick for you. I've seen it three times already, and I think it might've caused permanent damage on my psyche. If you STILL don't have any clue as to the quality of the film, people were trying to give it away for free and no one would take it. Not even by force.<br /><br />Long story short, watch it. Either as masochistic pleasure or punishment. It will rock your skull (and for the most part, for all the wrong reasons).
|
negative
|
I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...
|
negative
|
This movie pops up now and again on the ABC in Australia at about 3 am in the morning.<br /><br />It starts off with the scene of a bus crash in London.<br /><br />The films has got flashbacks of each character as the film progresses, plus the lapsed photography of Big Ben winding back, to symbolise what events occurred thirteen hours ago, up until the bus crash.<br /><br />It took me a while to understand it, but it was enjoyable nonetheless.<br /><br />If Sean Cunningham and Quentin Tarrantino got together and made a film, this may be the result - due to the flashbacks and small stories tying in, and deaths.<br /><br />I am unsure of the main characters, as it has been a while since I have seen it, but a rare gem indeed.
|
positive
|
What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.<br /><br />Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, "Back Street" as "trash".<br /><br />Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, "Ann Vickers" was no longer recalled by the general public.<br /><br />Suffice it to say that "Ann Vickers" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.<br /><br />Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?) <br /><br />Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: "I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey" !!! <br /><br />Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.
|
negative
|
<br /><br />As a Harold Lloyd fan, i agree with the other reviewer's comments, EXCEPT that I feel that "Movie Crazy" was his best sound film; "Cat's Paw" is a close second. (But, this is just MY opinion).<br /><br />This film is a "hoot" from beginning to end and, in many scenes, George Barbier (the crook that gets him elected mayor) almost steals the show! (Especially at the end of the film).<br /><br />One wishes that Una Merkel's character would be a bit more sympathetic to Harold, especially as the film progresses. Only in the last few minutes of the film do we find out her true feelings for him. (And, even then, there is no "romance" - kissing, etc).<br /><br />This is a Must-See film!
|
positive
|
Excellent plot within a plot within a plot. Shame about two of my film heroes having a good snog. Must be my upbringing:)<br /><br />Very well acted by all. You never quite know who's going to out-do who. The last little twist at the end allows for all to get their just deserts.<br /><br />Recommend to all. A harmless, tongue in cheek thriller which if it has any faults is probably Michael Caine's over-use of the word "bloody", but that's his signature, isn't it.<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.
|
negative
|
This movie has everything typical horror movies lack. Although some things are far fetched we are dealing with quality snow man engineers. The only preview i can reveal is that i cant wait for Jackzilla. Dare i say oscar winner. This is a perfect date movie. I advise all men for a nice romantic surprise see this movie with that special person.
|
positive
|
If you "been there" and "done that" you will absolutely love this film. I have and by "there" I mean underground clubs and house parties where there is far more rare to find people just being drunk than it is to find people high to their ears on extacy, speed or LSD. <br /><br />By "that" I mean dancing and sweating like crazy for eight hours or so in a row with out even a brake and , that followed by a way to long morning of no-can-sleep and almost wanting to die, followed by a week of just waiting till the next weekend to do it all again.<br /><br />So even though this film now is one of my absolute favourites I can certainly understand why some people, or most people even, would dislike it.
|
positive
|
As many of the other comments I have read have noted, I fell in love with this movie when I was a kid. My sister and I had a copy of the movie on Beta (before VHS) that we wore out. Of course it didn't help when our parents sold the BetaMax at a garage sale. Since then we have been trying to find a copy. I, like another commentator, did eventually locate a rental copy at a local video store. The owner would not part with the copy after any number of attempts to beg, bribe, and cry my way to owning the tape. GOOD NEWS! I bought a brand new, newly released, VHS copy of Midnight Madness for $9.99 on Amazon.com two days ago!!!! Finally, Disney has wizened up. Now, if they'll only rerelease Song of the South... If you love the movie, grab it. If you haven't seen the movie, it's worth a check - totally stupid humor but a lot of fun (Stephen Furst is hilarious).
|
positive
|
The war at home is a splendid television series and I don't understand because she has been annulled. Please fairies something to continue with this very beautiful television series, with excellent and marvelous actors, good recitation and good situations, please we want the third series and even so many new episodes. I pray you!!!! I would like if possible somehow to make to reach this and mail the interested forehand, since I can tell you that here in Italy this series is very liked, as in other countries of Europe chest of drawers for example Spain. In effects as I have written above what strikes of this television series it is the good recitation of the actors and also the honest one with which numerous matters of true importance are treated. I think both one of the best American television series arrive on the Italian screens in these last years.I pray you!!!!
|
positive
|
Pertty Kiran comes back to home after completing her college. She has got a nice charisma which always drawn men to her. Sunil Malhotra a dare devil navy employee is one such guy. He loves her deeply and even engaged to marry her. Rahul is another person who is insane and he also loves Kirrrran.<br /><br />Sunil is very close to her family and is adored by everyone in his home. Kiran has never met Rahul, but then Rahul would kill anyone who comes between him and Kiran. So when Rahul comes to know that Kiran is in love with Sunil, what will he do ? Will he kill him or he himself will be punished for his devil acts.
|
positive
|
This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.
|
negative
|
The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.
|
negative
|
I love Morgan Freeman. Paz Vega is an attractive, appealing and talented actress. I'm sure that this would have been a good movie had anything happened in it. Nothing does. It's short (less than 90 minutes). It was 75 minutes too long. After an hour of frustration, I scanned through the remaining 20-odd minutes. Excruciating.<br /><br />Freeman plays an actor - who hasn't worked in a while - researching a part that he might play, as a checkout clerk in a supermarket. He visits the supermarket where she works. Nothing happens. She decides to give him a ride home and they go to an Arby's, a Target, a car wash. Nothing happens. They converse about their lives. Nothing happens. Ever.<br /><br />I don't get it. But I also don't get the Bill Murray flicks "Lost In Translation" and "Broken Flowers". If you like those movies, maybe you'll like this. Lots of people find movies like this whimsical, charming, or - for reasons that escape me - find the dialog fascinating. A common device in movies of this ilk is to have a LONG take of stillness/silence after an actor delivers a line that's supposed to be meaningful. We know it's meaningful because it's followed by two minutes of nothing on the screen. Sorry, I must be a philistine. I don't get it. To me, these kinds of movies aren't funny, or charming, or thought-provoking. They're just boring. Why? Because there's no comedy. No drama. No tension. No laughs. No suspense. No action. Nothing to watch. In short, none of the things I go to the movies for. I can be bored for free. I see oddball/quirky characters in real life. I go to Target, and fast-food restaurants, and car-washes. These elements do not a movie make, even if stars are doing this stuff. I pay to be entertained.<br /><br />If you're crazy about Morgan Freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing, have fun. If you wanna drool over Paz Vega, you can look and listen to her. But nothing happens, I promise. A total snoozefest.
|
negative
|
i love this TV series so much. it contains animation that is interesting and beautiful. i cant believe that they cut it off TV, and also that i never found out whether cybersix and data7 die or not, apparently they survive, but I'm not sure. Cybersix was by far the BEST TV show ever. i know its to late to hope they will start the series over again so I'm really glad i got to watch it. I LUVED IT SO MUCH <3 <br /><br />its about a women by the name of cybersix, she is not human. She goes by adrian sieldman, a man teacher at a highschool. Now cybersix is actually a women, she is just disguised as a man in the day. By night cybersix patrols the city.<br /><br />A guy by the name of Von reichter is the one who created cybersix, and once he finds put she is alive he uses everything he can to capture her.<br /><br />IF u have never watched it before u should totally download it. It was the best TV show in the world. Why did they cut it off???? some people have issues. but I'm glad i got to watch the 13 episodes.
|
positive
|
I have been looking for this movie for so many years. I saw this move when I was nine and loved this movie. I called Disney all the movie stores and the net. No luck. What a waste it was a very good movie. It will be missed:(
|
positive
|
For one used to the comedies on television now- whether sketch, sitcom or animated, it's nice to watch something truly refreshing.<br /><br />The Chaser has to be the best comedy of this decade, Seinfeld being the last's triumph. It follows the hosts urban crusades to fix situations, do 'ad road tests' and try to get the facts from our politicians the good old fashioned way.<br /><br />Despite being very controversial at times, the shows excellent quality, from the well made and truly funny opening credits to the sketch style investigations (sketch style only in time, they are not scripted, at least, not the ones at the other end of the joke) is certainly worth watching. Even the most cynical and intellectual viewer won't be disappointed, and the show deserves ten stars.<br /><br />All in all, well done to the ABC for showing this and i recommend it highly.
|
positive
|
Bear in mind, any film (let alone documentary) which asserts any kind of truth, will generate an adverse and proportional amount of cynicism, from those to whom any suggestion of and or search for truths is already meaningless, those of you who are already Masters of psychology, film, and captains of the soul, will no doubt find this movie redundant, after all, you already know everything there is to know. Congrats.<br /><br />For those of us in the minority like myself, I found "The Perverts Guide To Cinmea"....mostly brilliant, and worth watching for those interested in movies, psychology, and modern philosophy.<br /><br />A little like Scott Mclouds' "Understanding Comics", director Sophie Fiennes, inter-grates Slovene philosopher, psychologist, and social critic Slavoj Zizek right into many of the films and specif scenes he discusses. The cover is an image from "The Birds"(Zizek takes a boat out to re-create the shot).<br /><br />Lacanian Psycho-analysis, does not necessarily scream, an evening of great fun...but it is! If you like movies that is.... Having some knowledge of Lacanian psycho-analysis helps (Symbolic, Real, and Imaginary) are terms which get thrown around a little loosely at first, but the scenes which Zizek selects and analyze make remarkably clear what was always for me, a very abstract subject. In fact, it's probably better to have a familiarity with the films he's discussing than with the terminology he uses, which becomes clearer as the film goes on.<br /><br />Why I love, this film isn't because it picks great films to analyze or reveals great truths about Lacan, but shows in a very practical and clever manner, where film and psychology (and by default philosophy) meet.<br /><br />Why is "The Sound Of Music" kinda fascistic, why is "Short Cuts" about more than just class and alienation, why do the birds attack in "The Birds", what is there to learn about the mind from "Alien Resurrection", what does the planet of "Solaris" want, what does "Psycho" and "The Marx Brothers" have to do with each other, and what the hell is David Lynch getting across in movie after movie...well Zizek has some ideas.<br /><br />The role of the voice in both "The Excorcist" and "Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith", is maybe the movies strongest and most lucid moment, when he gets into feminine sexual subjectivity I begin to wonder...at one point Zizek admits his feeling that flowers are a kind of decorative vagina dentatta, that they are disgusting and should be hidden from children (jokingly, it seems but...).<br /><br />Anyway, it's a fascinating documentary, which anyone who has ever seen a movie, and thought it meant something more than was literally stated, should make an attempt to see.<br /><br />And anyone interested in Slavoj Zizek, this is a must as well, much less dry than "Reality Of The Virtual", and more direct than "Zizek!", two other pseudo-docs, about "the Elvis of contemporary cultural criticism", as he is being dubbed, in the English speaking world.<br /><br />"The Perverts Guide To Cinema" is NOT about the role of sex in cinema. Zizek claims cinema is the ultimate pervert art, because it teaches "how to desire, and not what to desire", and that it is the only contemporary art form that can allow for these desires to be articulated. This is not a film about finding the reality in cinema, it's about finding the cinema in reality, and how important and exciting that can be. Hard to find, and a bit long, but well worth the trouble, one of the most "stimulating" movie watching experiences I've ever had.
|
positive
|
I was wandering through my local library, browsing VHS tapes, when I saw a movie that made my mouth drop--Waterbabies. I have been hoping to see this movie again--it's been over 22 years since I saw it (cable-movie channel around 78-79). I had recalled a good many of the details--Grimes in particular. My son, who is 4, and I watched it.<br /><br />He agreed with me that Grimes was "Not nice", and the best way for me to describe it was that he didn't love Tom. He accepted that. It was amazing that I still recalled some of the songs, too! They had stuck in my head for 22 years--which means they had to have some memorable-ness, eh?<br /><br />It's a good child's movie, with parental guidance in case of questions about what children had to go through that were not nobility/society in the time-frame. This is what all the children faced daily (except for a few lucky ones), and while we try to Disney-coat movies, making them more pc for children these days, it doesn't mean that cruelty didn't exist--or even still doesn't. I enjoyed the animation. It wasn't Disney, no. I don't think Don Bluth touched a paintbrush on this movie.<br /><br />There's a lot going for it, though. David T plays two roles! (I really like him!) James M does too. The waterbabies themselves are cute. You feel sorry for Tom, and root for him. Then Billie herself is extraordinary in the multi-role part she's playing--it's as if her eyes ARE magickal! I'm a huge fan of WoO, TLW&TW, and company (AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HP!), and I filed this along with those kind of movies. Yes, he jumps in the water, but not because of suicide. He jumped because he trusted the lady in black--she'd been appearing to him all along.<br /><br />I think it's a good movie! If you have kids, pick up a rental copy. If you happen to locate a buy-able copy, let me know where! Ian liked it! :)<br /><br />Dee
|
positive
|
I really enjoy this particular production of "The Mikado." The producers added a few touches throughout to make it more amusing for modern audiences -- for instance, "As Some Day It May Happen" (the "little list" song) is completely updated, and a few lines are ad-libbed throughout the play. Liberties were also taken with the setting. The costumes are not Japanese, but rather 1920s English (although some of the "Tittipudlian" girls wear '20s-inspired kimonos). This production is well-choreographed with some 1920s dance styles, and there are some extra dancing maids and bellhops to keep your eyes (as well as ears) entertained during the songs. If you're a Gilbert & Sullivan purist these changes may bother you, but I think they're fine -- and I love the costumes! <br /><br />Felicity Palmer (Katisha) is absolutely hilarious; all of her scenes make me laugh out loud (one of my favorite add-ons is when she first makes an entrance -- the dancing bellhops annoy her with their antics, so she screeches at the top of her voice, "STOP IT!!!"). All of the other main characters do a fine job as well. I particularly like Mark Richardson as Pish-Tush (that toupee!) and Lesley Garrett as Yum-Yum.<br /><br />You must keep in mind that this is a stage production being filmed and set your expectations accordingly. There is no change of setting, although the filmmakers used some 1930s film techniques to add interest. If there is one draw-back to this production, it is that the stage makeup wasn't modified for close-up shots with a camera. Foundation lines are often visible and there seems to be a surplus of eyeliner, lipstick, and blush everywhere. I've seen this sort of thing happen before with films of plays, and it's a little jarring at first. However, I hope you'll get used to it and enjoy "The Mikado" for what it's worth -- a thoroughly enjoyable rendition of a classic!
|
positive
|
I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".
|
negative
|
i have lost count as to how many times i have watched this movie. i've never grown tired of it since this is a movie that can be enjoyed and interpreted on so many levels. they just don't make movies like this anymore.<br /><br />after recently finally watching the riveting documentary on the making of this film (Hearts of Darkness:a filmmakers journey into madness), i'm even more amazed that this film even got finished, yet alone turn out so great.<br /><br />the fact that they actually filmed this movie in the jungles of the Phillipines is the film's greatest asset. you actually FEEL like your in Vietnam.<br /><br />all of the actors are fantastic with my favorites still being Robert Duvall ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning!!") martin sheen, and the great Marlon Brando.<br /><br />a lot of people complain that the film gets too murky, weird and cerebral near the end. well, remeber what Coppolla said about this movie, "This film is not about vietnam, it IS vietnam!" what he means is that this film is about MADNESS and not the war.<br /><br />this movie is based on the short story "Heart of darkness" by Joseph Conrad and is set against the vietnam war instead of the civil war as in the book. i think that was a brilliant combination in my opinion.<br /><br />this is perfect, challenging film that is dark, violent, humorous at times and well done in every single possible way.<br /><br />a true classic<br /><br />rating:10
|
positive
|
If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.
|
negative
|
Army private Gene Kelly, who's also a talented trapeze aerialist, comes under fire for doing daring stunts without a net and alienating his high-wire cohorts; meanwhile, there's an elaborate 'camp show' to put on for Army soldiers and personnel, and the whole studio of M-G-M has shown up to join in the fun. Mickey Rooney plays M.C. (unctuously), introducing acts like Kay Kyser and His Orchestra, Bob Crosby, Benny Carter, and the M-G-M Dancing Girls (who appear to be dressed as vegetables). Red Skelton does a cute bit with Donna Reed and Margaret O'Brien, but the other comedic bits suffer from an apparent vacuum between the performers and the allegedly-live audience (they're awfully silent until the editor cuts to them for exaggerated reaction shots). Judy Garland sings an inappropriate song about a jumpin' night at Carnegie Hall (improbably accompanied by classical pianist José Iturbi, whom Judy calls 'hep'). The production is glossy, but the manic energy feels false, fabricated. ** from ****
|
negative
|
This was one of the few Norwegian movies I actually looked forward too see. It started of as a few commercials with a motley bunch at football matches. Then they made a movie out of it. The leads are not pros (and you can see that) but they still do a very good job and the movie all in all blew me away.<br /><br />Norway is known for making crappy movies (no offense)but I had a good feeling about this one. Even thou I'm not interested in football I wanted 2 see it. the story is a lot better than expected and the laughs just keep piling up. there are loads of cameos from Norwegian celebrities and players. the characters are well portrayed and you feel for them. IF You're EVER GONNA SEE A NORWEGIAN MOVIE. LET IT BE THIS ONE!!!!
|
positive
|
**Possible Spoilers** From Dreamworks and director Peter Chan, `The Love Letter' is a romantic comedy that takes place in a picturesque, New England coastal village where single mom Helen (Kate Capshaw) owns a quaint, little bookstore. One day at work, Helen happens across an anonymous letter (the `love letter' of the title) that has somehow become lodged beneath the cushions of a reading couch. Upon reading the amorous prose therein, she believes it has been written to her, purposely placed in the couch for her to find, and, for reasons of her own, thinks she knows the identity of her secret admirer. Inadvertently, however, Helen leaves the letter out where her employee, Janet (Ellen DeGeneres) finds it, believes it to be for her, and, of course, thinks she knows who wrote it. Circumstances then bring it into the possession of a young man named Johnny (Tom Everett Scott), who thinks Helen has written the letter to him. And before it all gets sorted out, you can only imagine the hilarious situations into which all of those involved have been cast; and I do mean imagine, because the way this movie plays out, the audience gets little more from it than what it brings along itself. There are two specific areas in which this romantic comedy fails miserably: It simply isn't very romantic, and it's not funny; and that is a potent combination that causes this film to misfire practically from the opening credits. Once the setting and main character (Helen) have been established, it basically goes nowhere for the next ninety minutes or so. By the time you finally find out who actually wrote the letter, and to whom, you could care less. Rounding out the cast is Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Julianne Nicholson, Gloria Stuart and Geraldine McEwan. It's a shame to see such talent wasted on such claptrap as this, and looking bad in the balance. Kate Capshaw, who usually brightens up the screen just by showing up, looks tired here, while Selleck appears to have just come in off a three day bender that's lasted a week. Ellen DeGeneres actually comes away looking the best of the bunch. It is said that the journey is often a more heady experience than the destination. In the case of `The Love Letter,' however, it would have been best for all concerned if everybody had just stayed home in the first place. I rate this one 1/10.
|
negative
|
A very good movie about anti-semitism near the end of WWII. The scene that really speaks loudly of the ignorance of these people is the meeting at the church when the priest is giving his speech against the "international money grubbers and communists". It sounds amazingly like the speeches that Adolph Hitler used to force down his peoples' throats, yet none of the meeting attendees seem to make this comparison.
|
positive
|
If this guy can make a movie, then I sure as hell can make one too.<br /><br />In fact, if you hire me to make a movie for you, I promise to do the following:<br /><br />1) I will add more naked women. This movie had none. I think cheesy B-class horror movies are only rented because of their traditional exploitation of the female body. I wouldn't want to let my viewers down.<br /><br />2) I will refrain from making too many scenes where the hero wakes up to find out it's only a dream. I think HorrorVision had about 4 of these scenes. And, considering the movie was only like an hour long, the dream-to-movie-length ratio was quite high. And, if I do decide to do a dream sequence, I will make sure that the person wakes up without clothes on. I mean, who sleeps in leather pants??<br /><br />3) I will not rip off any movies like Star Wars or the Matrix because I will know that my budget is small and I will not want to mask my contempt for big-budget Hollywood movies by adding satirical references about them in mine. <br /><br />4) And finally, I will not mix modern technology with the undead. I mean, a palm pilot can only be so scary ... at least they turned it into an evil rolly-polly monster before the screen blew up or something.<br /><br />So, if you are looking for the above qualities in your next horror production, count on me: wanna-b-movie director extraordinaire.
|
negative
|
I have to say that this was not very exciting but talk about fashion and weird ways to solve a mystery. A little too simple, Nancy Drew (Emma Roberts) uses IMDb... that's fantastic! I really liked about that part of the movie...<br /><br />Corky (Josh Flitter) is however extremely hilarious... and Ned Nickerson (Max Thieriot) seemed really hopeless... he should have been more angry with her for how she has treated him...<br /><br />Alright, this movie is tour and fashion in disguise. Anyhow, I recommend this movie, just for summer fun. Encore Nancy, just for fun. More teen spy movies by Emma Roberts.. Spymate... remember? She's becoming good at this tricky detective work.
|
positive
|
This movie is about 3 stories put together revolving around 3 separate individuals. One of the worst movie that is available and even better if it is not available.<br /><br />The Good : 2 pretty lesbians actress 1 true and touching story about Theresa Chan<br /><br />The Bad :The main story that revolves around the blind and dear woman Theresa Chan does not need to be told in a movie format and more appropriate in a documentary format. No linkage between the 3 story lines. Minimum DIALOGUE in the film, substituted by SMSs and CHAT programs on PC. No cultural insight by the movie and it makes you forget even before you step out of the cinema.
|
negative
|
An Epic Story of Hope constrained by budget and limited artistic ambition. Seeing as Terrence Malick produced this, I expected something haunting and lyrical. Instead, we get a typical Norwegian co-production ("Revolution" with Al Pacino, anyone?), where - quite possibly - good intentions are scuppered by a dreadful screenplay, and where many of the characters are reduced to stereotypes. The "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" English dialogue between the non-English-speaking protagonists is particularly cringeworthy one could speculate whether Nick Nolte and Tim Roth ad-libbed their own, as they almost sound like real people. The story is loaded with implausibility: we are expected to believe that Binh can speak a smattering of English after having spent his entire life living as a peasant slave (his vocabulary, but unfortunately not grammatical command, increases impressively in the Malayan refugee camp, without the benefit of night classes). Coincidence is rife; I wonder whether an hour or two has been edited from the first third: he tracks down his mother in Ho Chi Minh City almost immediately - after bumping into his thirty year younger half brother, who nonchalantly recognises him! Mum gives him a gold locket (or something similar of great value) as they part, but this is never referred to again. His relationship with "Me Dead Inside" Ling is supposed to provide the obligatory "love interest", but feels as artificial as Leonardo and Cameron in "Gangs Of New York". <br /><br />The voyage in the rust bucket of a boat does convey a sense of the appalling conditions that human trafficking entails. Indeed, the only time the film is remotely exciting and unpredictable, is the jerky, hand-held footage shot from the bridge during choppy weather conditions. (Incidentally, a boat cruise from Malaysia to New York via The Cape Of Good Hope and the African coast, without stopping for fuel or supplies, is certainly an epic journey). The beautiful shot of the New York skyline echoes Malick's use of magic hour, but I want to know why the Coast Guard didn't show up. Perhaps they were watching the Super Bowl, or something. Of course, Binh manages to track down his blind old Dad on a remote farm in Texas, with the same navigational flair he displayed in Ho Chi Minh City. I was impressed at how Nick Nolte could wander around digging fields and feeding horses on a large ranch without the aid of a guide dog or white stick. For demonstration of how a story about the travails befalling refugees could be structured and shot on a small budget, check out Michael Winterbottom's far superior "In This World".
|
negative
|
This film came recommended as a good action film, which I don't really think it is. I found the story convoluted and not all that easy to follow. There really isn't that much action until the end of the film and it's pretty dark and hard to see what's really happening. I was sure hoping for something different, but, alas, didn't find it here.
|
negative
|
This is so bad, so very very bad. The acting is the biggest joke in history. Don't even bother to see it, i did ff it after 20 min and it was just as disappointing in the end as in the beginning... I really don't understand peoples taste, I'm a horror movie fan and I'm not fastidious but I DO HAVE A LIMIT! Maybe it was a quarter of a star better then the beginning of The Hoast but that's it. So I recommend you don't waste the 15 minutes you'll be able to watch. I mean the acting is better done by monkeys. And the big brother with the parental role is just awful. Don't they pay characters in C-movies? No I must say it's not the first time I think a horror movie is bad but it's absolutely one in my down ten movies and it will be charing places with Portrait of a vampire, Cabin by the lake, The Hoast!
|
negative
|
***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****<br /><br />I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.
|
negative
|
It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can. <br /><br />The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.<br /><br />Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.<br /><br />The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.<br /><br />I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.
|
negative
|
Whoever wrote the "nice" post about this must have been a friend of these guys. This is bad even for backyard wrestling. In fact this isn't even backyard wrestling really, it's a few guys hitting each other on a trampoline. Each guys is about 45 lbs wet and there is not one ounce of entertainment value in this. It is just a few bored kids that even give yard tards a bad name, if that is possible. If you want to see some entertaining backyard wrestling, pick up Backyard Wrestling A Pleasure for Pain. It stars the 2 biggest names in BYW, MDogg20 and Josh Prohibition. These guys are good. They have actually went since yarding it and gotten professionally trained as "real" pro wrestlers. They went legit and have gotten better. I recommend checking out those 2 guys. MDogg is insane and off the hook. So don't waste your time or your cash on this crappy DVD, there are "better" back yard videos out there.
|
negative
|
The Underground Comedy Movie, is possibly the worst train wrecks I've ever seen. Luckily I didn't pay for this movie, and my friend reluctantly agreed to watch it again siting that it was so awful but he needed to prove to me how awful it was. I love off color comedy. I figured at the least it would have that and I would be entertained. No, instead the acting was so awful, the "jokes" were extremely cheesy, and the plot was no where to be found. Maybe there wasn't supposed to be a plot so I can't hold that against this movie. It's pretty sad where the funniest thing in a comedy is an old woman having her head hit off by a bat.....by Batman...A man dressed in a baseball uniform wielding a bat. Hilarious. Simply genius. I got the feeling watching this movie that its creators made it and laughed hysterically with their friends about it. Perhaps this was full of inside jokes we just didn't understand. Or perhaps it's the worst piece of trash ever made and it should be locked away in a vault and dumped in the Arctic Ocean.<br /><br />P.S. Don't buy this movie!
|
negative
|
Being a huge fan of Bergman I had to search literally years to find this movie (at a price less than $60 I mean) and finally bought it a few weeks ago. The basic premise of Bergmans films are the relationships between the characters and how they deal with trying situations. This film therefore is the same yet it is different because the setting is far different than most of the Bergman films the I have seen.<br /><br />It is set in wartime and the heros are caught in the middle.<br /><br />It is riveting from start to finish and it once again proves that Liv Ullman is one of the best actresses of the 20th century. A must see.
|
positive
|
For all those bewildered by the length and pace of this film ("like, why does he show spaceships docking for, like, 15 minutes?"), here's a word you might want to think about:<br /><br />Beauty.<br /><br /> Beauty is an under-rated concept. Sure, you'll often see nice photography and so on in films. But when did you last see a film that contains beauty purely for the sake of it? There is a weird belief among cinemagoers that anything which is not plot or character related must be removed. This is depressing hogwash. There is nothing wrong with creating a beautiful sequence that has nothing to do with the film's plot. A director can show 15 minutes of spaceships for no reason than that they are beautiful, and it is neither illegal nor evil to do so. <br /><br /> '2001' requires you to watch in a different way than you normally watch films. It requires you to relax. It requires you to experience strange and beautiful images without feeling guilty that there is no complex plot or detailed characterization. Don't get me wrong, plots and characters are good, but they're not the be-all and end-all of everything. There are different KINDS of film, and to enjoy '2001' you must tune your brain to a different wavelength and succumb to the pleasure of beauty, PURE beauty, unfettered by the banal conventions of everyday films.<br /><br /> "All art is quite useless" - Oscar Wilde.
|
positive
|
I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.
|
negative
|
i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:<br /><br />when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography.
|
negative
|
I had never seen Richard Thomas play a bad guy. I wasn't sure I would like him this way. And I wasn't sure he could pull it off. But this astounded me. He sent shivers up my spine and caused me to take a closer look at street people. The movie is engrossing and fast paced. Bruce Davison is convincing but all he can really play is a nice guy. The real talent here is Thomas. The ending was a little clumsy but perhaps that's the way real people would fight... If you are a Thomas fan you MUST see him here at his best being bad!
|
positive
|
I as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.
|
negative
|
People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again.
|
negative
|
The only possible way to enjoy this flick is to bang your head against the wall, allow some internal hemorrhaging of the brain, let a bunch of your brain cells die and once you are officially mentally retarded, perhaps then you *MIGHT* enjoy this film.<br /><br />The only saving grace was the story between Raju and Stephanie. Govinda was excellent in the role of the cab driver and so was the Brit girl. Perhaps if they would have created the whole movie on their escapades in India and how they eventually fall in love would have made it a much more enjoyable film.<br /><br />The only reason I gave it a 3 rating is because of Govida and his ability as an actor when it comes to comedy.<br /><br />Juhi Chawla and Anil Kapoor were wasted needlessly. Plus the scene at Heathrow of the re-union was just too much to digest. Being an international traveler in the post 9/11 world, Anil Kapoor would have got himself shot much before he even reached the sky bridge to profess his true love :) But then again the point of the movie was to defy logic, gravity, physics and throw an egg on the face of the *GENERAL* audience.<br /><br />Watch it at your own peril. At least I know I have been scarred for life :(
|
negative
|
I never seem to write a review on IMDb unless I am extremely surprised at how good, or how bad, a movie is. This film falls into the first category. Every year, I try to see all the nominees for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars, even those that I know I won't like. "As It Is In Heaven" seems to fit the bill. The plot sounds sugary and sentimental and slow....For my tastes, which run more towards original, dark and/or daring foreign cinema (Michael Haneke, Francois Ozon, A lot of modern Japanese/Korean cinema) "As It Is In Heaven" does not sound particularly interesting....It didn't get released in the USA, so I sat down to watch a VCD I found in Singapore, preparing to "cross it off the list". After a dull beginning, "As It Is In Heaven" becomes that rare film where you really become inspired by what is happening on screen. Weak points: The characters in the film are pure "stock" characters- the Wounded Dreamer, the Town Bully, the Battered Wife, the Loose Woman Yearning for Love, the Repressed Minister....Thankfully, they're largely a likable bunch, as well as being well-written and well-acted. Ingela Olsson, as the minister's wife Inger, would have been nominated for an Oscar had her performance been in English. Strong points: the music is beautiful, and the main song, sung by Gabriella, is truly dramatic and memorable. And keep an eye out for the feisty 87-year old actress playing Olga, who is keeping up with the dancing steps as well as the younger ladies! I won't discuss the ending, but I will say that it makes sense. They're are a lot of emotional things happening in the last hour of the film, and you're not quite sure why they're happening. Although nothing is explained in words, it all makes sense as the movies comes to a fitting crescendo. **** out of *****. Probably the strongest Swedish movie I've ever seen.
|
positive
|
This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.
|
negative
|
In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.<br /><br />It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the "gentle" and "powerhouse" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.<br /><br />The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http://barbra-archives.com/films/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.<br /><br />In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.<br /><br />(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song)
|
negative
|
This rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.
|
negative
|
I saw this episode of Masterpiece Theatre and immediately came to IMDb to look it up. I was greeted by a comment from another user, who believed that it was nothing special, a 6 out of 10, and underwhelming. I would feel morally remiss if I didn't disagree.<br /><br />Now, I am an avid fan of Masterpiece Theatre, but oftentimes the stories can be a bit silly on television, for example, "He Knew He Was Right" was absolutely horrendous. "Carrie's War," however, is probably the best I've seen so far. The entire cast does an excellent job, and it held my interest more than any other piece I've seen recently. The character Mr. Evans is of particular interest, and through subtle images of, for example, an untouched birthday cake or a garnet ring, my opinion of him went from bad to truly good. Truly. His ultimate demise, and the story of how everyone around him left him a cold hard man, is what brought out the bittersweet in this story for me.<br /><br />The end is gratifying in every sense but one; that everyone did not get what they deserved, but overall things worked out. I absolutely recommend this to everyone.
|
positive
|
This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.
|
negative
|
A sweet and totally charming film, Shall We Dansu? made me laugh and cry. At first appearance, Sugiyama-san was not terribly appealing--an uptight salaryman, seemingly devoted to his family, but all too easily captivated by a face in a window. The object of his obsession is distant and cold. But by the end of the movie, I was in love with him, her, his wife and daughter, all the dance instructors and dance students. This uncomplicated story of transformation and renewal is a little jewel that I would enjoy seeing again.
|
positive
|
...don't watch it. Here's a hint: tune in to the last 5 minutes and you'll catch her in a bikini. Otherwise you'll just have to sit through the flick and endure her helium-sucking voice view for screen time with the inexplicable Aussie accents of the lost city of Atlantis or wherever the heck she goes to to locate her missing father. We now know why Kathy pursued a non-speaking career of modelling: she couldn't have survived the death-threats from those poor headache-suffering victims who heard her voice for more than 30 seconds. The rest of the story is some kind of weird poorly-lit Mad Max mish-mash.
|
negative
|
Saw it at UCSB's reel loud festival and was *shocked* that it won the golden reel award. I wasn't the only one, considering the audience had mixed reactions to the piece. I thought there were many other better flicks out there, but then I learned that the judges were heavily rooted within the area of film theory and other artsy crap. While the cinematography and editing are on par with many other shorts out there, the storytelling is nothing more than your average student piece. Seems as though "serious" student films need to include one of these categories: sex, intrapersonal struggle, and eventual suicide -- Nick and Kate cops out and includes all three. Please, be more original!<br /><br />Oh, and it might be my outsider's opinion, but the guy from montecito sounds a little fake. Does anyone else thing so?
|
negative
|
Billed as a kind of sequel to The Full Monty, about unemployed men in Sheffield, this movie is a fake.<br /><br />As someone born in Sheffield, and still with links to the city, I was extremely disappointed by this film. Someone said it could have been set in Oklahoma, and that just about sums it up for me. This looked like a romantic view of northern England made for the US market. Probably many Americans - and many southern English people - don't realize that Sheffield is a big city of around half a million inhabitants, with a sophisticated urban culture. In Among Giants it was depicted as some dreary dead-end semi-rural small town, where everyone in Sheffield seemed to drink in the same old-fashioned pub, and where the people's idea of a party was line-dancing in some village-hall lookalike. This was a small close-knit community, not a metropolitan city.<br /><br />The working-class Sheffield men were totally unlike their real-life counterparts, who are generally taciturn and communicate with each other in grunts and brief dry remarks. They don't chatter, and they certainly don't sing in choirs.<br /><br />Even the rural settings, supposedly in the Peak District, looked alien to me. I recognized a few places where I used to go hiking, but some of the aerial shots of pylons stretching out over a bleak landscape reminded me more of Wales. Indeed, in the credits at the end I spotted a reference to Gwynedd, Wales. The Peak District is, in the summer, crawling with walkers and tourists in cars. It is situated between two big cities. It is not some kind of wilderness.<br /><br />As for the notion that a young woman could fall in love with, and lust after, Pete Postlethwaite, that was ludicrous, and could only have been a male dream. Her reasons for becoming his lover were never made apparent. None of the men was shown as having a partner or families; they existed in a vacuum.<br /><br />Anyone wanting to see a film about unemployed Sheffielders would have been led astray. This Sheffield existed only in the minds of its middle-class writers and film-makers.<br /><br />It was a gigantic fake!<br /><br />
|
negative
|
A question immediately arises in this extremely idiosyncratic film: Who are the crazy people?<br /><br />The answer become less clear as the film goes on.<br /><br />Renee Zellweger loses the whiney note in her voice and, while her voice is still high, she is incredibly effective as the shell-shocked Betty. In fact, she is so effective I almost wanted her to be just a little more crazy because her created reality was so believable.<br /><br />This is the first time Ms Zellweger has been called upon to carry a film and she is more than equal to the task.<br /><br />Chris Rock though as foul-mouthed as usual is fairly subdued as Wesley. He is able to sublimate his manic energy and it only occasionally surfaces and always when it is needed most.<br /><br />There are some interesting allusions: the first time you see Betty she is dressed almost exactly like Dorothy Gale from the `Wizard of Oz' then later in the film she is compared to Dorothy when she says she has never been out of Kansas before. At one point the song that Doris Day was best known for, Que Sera Sera' is on the soundtrack and then later Charlie (Morgan Freeman) describes her as having a whole Doris Day thing going on.'<br /><br />This is an extremely quirky film with good performances by everyone including the supporting cast.<br /><br />It has a surprising ending that, as contrary as it sounds, is actually fairly predictable.<br /><br />If for no other reason see this film just to listen to the master of the human voice: Morgan Freeman.
|
positive
|
i just saw this movie on TNT and let me tell you, this movie was downright corny and cheezy. But after a certain point, I began to laugh my socks off and to tell you the truth, they should classify this movie as comedy rather than action/adventure. The absolutely most hilarious scene comes when the Delon and Kennedy are making loop the loop 360's to avoid the French missiles that Wagner ordered to destroy the Concorde. Our fearless leader, Kennedy, decides to shoot flares out the window to stop the heat seeking missiles????? Dumb yet funny---the kicker comes here though---after one shot, the flare gun malfunctions and Kennedy tries to fix it in the cockpit and well...if you want to know what happens get a hold of this movie. The dumb parts of this movie include the total lack of plot----yeah lets have some action for 25 minutes than land in Paris and go ONE HOUR with love scenes with prostitutes and flight attendants. Now lets switch to the saboteur for ten minutes then a wasted rest of the movie and a plane that is visually breaking apart and the PASSENGERS DON"T EVEN SEE IT???? ITS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES!!!!-----final rating for this move--- (1/10) out of 4 stars if it were action 2 out of 4 stars if it were a comedy
|
negative
|
OK, if you are a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3000 and love to mock movies, then you will have a lot of fun with this. Otherwise, it may really be TOO painful to see.<br /><br />Plot: Obsessed cryptozoologist sneaks a huge crate containing a Chupacabra onto a cruise ship (apparently not having to declare it at customs, or even mention that he's bringing aboard a live animal -"no really, it's research equipment, the air holes are just an accident"). Some dipsticks he hired to lade it open the crate, figuring he paid bunches of money, maybe there's something to steal. Once the WOOD CRATE is open, the Chupacabra breaks through the STEEL BARS inside and goes on a killing rampage.<br /><br />Yeah, whatever.<br /><br />By a stroke of sheer coincidence, a Marshall (I assume a U.S. Marshall, since he was in the gulf war, not just some guy named Marshall) is on board, investigating some money that went missing from the ship's safe. He's posing as an insurance salesman ("Lady, I'm the best insurance you've got..."). Other scintillating characters include the captain (John Rhys-Davies, and sadly his dignity is the first victim of the film), his tae-bo instructor daughter (snicker - Tae-bo), an annoying old stuck-up lady with a tiny dog which should be fed to a cat (guess WHAT eats it...?) and an incredibly unpleasant gigolo who might have been believable in a movie made in 1964, not in anything more recent. Much of the acting was really bad, and the characters were just there so that you can laugh hysterically when they died.<br /><br />Overall - SCREAMINGLY bad. Bad on many levels. BAD BAD BAD. What??? Bullets don't even make Chupacabra flinch, but the Tae-bo bimbo can punch him and scare him away???? Hey Sci-fi Channel, you desperate for scripts or what?
|
negative
|
First of all, don't go into Revolver expecting another Snatch or Lock Stock, this is a different sort of gangster film.<br /><br />I saw the gala the other night and this movie definitely split the audience. It's the kind of movie where half the audience will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was awful, and the other half will leave thinking WHAT was that? That was cool. Personally i like films that i don't understand, i.e.Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, so i enjoyed Revolver. <br /><br />It definitely wasn't perfect though. I saw the big twist coming a mile away, at least part of it, and though sometimes some loose ends left unexplained is good, Revolver leaves A LOT of questions unexplained for no reason it seemed. Also some scenes, like the animation, and the scene where Sorter goes on a killing spree(actually one of my favourites), although, awesome scenes to watch, seemed to just be there because they were awesome to watch, not because they fit in with the movie.<br /><br />However there were many good things too. I thought the acting was superb from all the main actors, Jason stratham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, and even Andre Benjamin(who was a pleasant surprise). This movie definitely kept my interest, with one great, suspenseful, action packed, scene after another. When Ray Liotta was being held under the table wow....well you have to see it. The script was extremely well done, and the soundtrack, as with most Guy Ritchie films, was great.<br /><br />Though a step below such movies as,Fight Club, Mullholland Drive, and Usual Suspects, it was still an awesome fast paced, psychological, action movie, with many twists and turns and tons of scenes you will remember long after the movie is over.
|
positive
|
No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?<br /><br />The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!<br /><br />Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. <br /><br />Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.<br /><br />What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...<br /><br />The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. <br /><br />You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.