review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Don't drink the cool-aid.<br /><br />This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie.
|
negative
|
****Contains Spoilers****<br /><br />As a fan of Rachael Leigh Cook, I watched for this show to finally come on so that I could see it. I taped it so I could watch it several times, and there is something about this show that really bothers me!<br /><br />I recognize that this was a made-for-TV movie. Not only that, but it was made for Lifetime, which is a channel that I despise. Because it was made for TV, I can ignore the huge plot holes. I can ignore the massive lack of character development in Ally Sheedy's character. I can overlook the fact that George C. Scott and Rachael Leigh Cook, both of whom are very talented actors, were definately not reaching the best of their abilities. I can look past the fact that Don Diamont's character was so cliche'd, that you knew when you saw him he was the villain. I can even pass over the obvious mistake in the timeline (She's raped during her winter break, and then over a year later she has the baby from it.)<br /><br />The major thing that I can't get over is this: There are two trials for the custody of the child. In the first trial, custody is awarded to the child's father because he is "better educated, has a degree from a community college, and has a full time job." In the second trial the judgement is reversed because the Judge feels that there is lack of evidence that Emma (RLC's character)is an unfit mother, and custody shouldn't be taken from the primary caretaker and given to someone with no previous interaction with the child.<br /><br />The problem is this: Nowhere during the course of these trials is the fact that a thirtysomthing year old man raped a 15 year old girl and got her pregnant taken into consideration! Whether it was a rape or not, he had sex with a minor! Wouldn't that be taken into consideration when the judge is choosing him for custody because he's a "mature adult?" Mature adults don't have sex with minors! <br /><br />It's not the worst cable movie that you would ever see, but it's not a great show either. ** out of ****
|
negative
|
At first glance I expected this film to be crappy because I thought the plot would be so excessively feminist. But I was wrong. As you maybe have read in earlier published comments, I agree in that the feminist part in this film does not bother. I never had the idea that the main character was exaggerating her position as a woman. It's like Guzman is presented as somebody with a spine, this in contrast to her classmates. So I was surprised by the story, in fact, I thought it was quite good, except for the predictable end. Maybe it would've been a better idea to give the plot a radical twist, so that the viewer is somewhat more surprised.<br /><br />In addition, I'd like to say that Rodriguez earned her respect by the way she put away her character. I can't really explain why, but especially in the love scenes she convinced me. It just looked real I think.<br /><br />I gave it a 7 out of 10, merely because of the dull last half hour.
|
positive
|
The '70s were a great time for horror movies. The Brotherhood of Satan is yet another overlooked gem. It's full to the brim with great surreal, unsettling scenes. It's also great to see Stother Martin and L.Q. Jones (who also produced) in decent roles.<br /><br />Some of it is a little dated and cheesy, but The Brotherhood of Satan kicks butt over Race the Devil and many other '70s Satanism flicks.
|
positive
|
Ignore the comment before mine. The show is comic genius, most underrated show ever. 3 reasons why. Reason 1, the flashbacks are hilarious, who cares if they have absolutely nothing to do with the story, they make me laugh so hard it hurts and isn't that the idea of a good comedy programme? People who think this isn't funny just have no sense of humour. Who cares if they are random, its a t.v. show, you can do what ever you like with it and people say its not realistic, neither is a cartoon, its animated. Reason 2, The jokes are just generally hilarious, Seth McFarlane and the other writers are soooooooooooo funny, everything from the Star Wars references to making fun of celebrities, i love them all. And Reason 3, the story lines are just brilliant and funny, they set up all of the jokes with their crazy nature and wackiness, just all the more funnier.<br /><br />I caught this one late night on BBC2 and have never gone back, i have all 7 seasons, plus the kind of movie thing (Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story), i have several t-shirts, posters and my collection is still growing. I've never got a collection of any TV show before but this was so funny i just had to get everything. <br /><br />Just watch season 3 and trust me you will be hooked for life, the funniest show ever created and i hope it never ends!
|
positive
|
I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.<br /><br />I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.<br /><br />Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.<br /><br />JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious
|
positive
|
Surprisingly good film made in the wake of the Exorcist concerning a young woman who becomes possessed by a spirit after she goes to a de-sanctified church to restore a life size and life like crucified man . The piece was Christ and the two thieves, however Christ was long ago sold off. Trouble starts once the figure is removed from the cross and it seems to come to life and seduce the woman. From that point on it becomes a battle for the girls soul. Creepy, scary and much better than you think the film works because its cast sells the events which are decidedly adult. It helps that these are real people who are flawed so its easier to relate to them. I really liked this film, and seeing it again for the first time in at least a decade I was shocked at how good it is. Definitely better than any of its myriad of schlocky titles makes it seem.
|
positive
|
Bill Paxton has taken the true story of the 1913 US golf open and made a film that is about much more than an extra-ordinary game of golf. The film also deals directly with the class tensions of the early twentieth century and touches upon the profound anti-Catholic prejudices of both the British and American establishments. But at heart the film is about that perennial favourite of triumph against the odds.<br /><br />The acting is exemplary throughout. Stephen Dillane is excellent as usual, but the revelation of the movie is Shia LaBoeuf who delivers a disciplined, dignified and highly sympathetic performance as a working class Franco-Irish kid fighting his way through the prejudices of the New England WASP establishment. For those who are only familiar with his slap-stick performances in "Even Stevens" this demonstration of his maturity is a delightful surprise. And Josh Flitter as the ten year old caddy threatens to steal every scene in which he appears.<br /><br />A old fashioned movie in the best sense of the word: fine acting, clear directing and a great story that grips to the end - the final scene an affectionate nod to Casablanca is just one of the many pleasures that fill a great movie.
|
positive
|
Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don`t really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it`s not a scene it`s the entire movie<br /><br />Yup movies don`t get anymore low concept than this . They also don`t get anymore boring than this either , but there`s worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who`s also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it`s possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s<br /><br />Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I`M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it`s written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it`s based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie
|
negative
|
A very delightful bit of filmwork that should have had wider distribution. Ian McShane is right at home playing the soul loving DJ who gets canned because he won't " go along with the program " and sets out to let the world know what they're missing. The supporting cast is great as well, and the music is the "Soul" of the film. I just wish that the film would be released so that I could get a copy of this for my film library.
|
positive
|
This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! Me and my husband own over 600 DVDs, most of which are Sci-Fi and Horror B-Movies that aren't top quality, but still entertaining. Dracula 300 had absolutely no redeeming qualities at all! The writing was horrific, and the acting was even worse. It took us a 3 tries to get through the entire movie, because we could only tolerate it in 30 minute intervals. We thought surely it must get better...we were wrong. I would rather watch a corpse being embalmed than to have to sit through that again!!! When it ended me and my husband just looked at each other like "Uh..is that it?" The ending seemed like there was supposed to be more, but they ran over their apparent $500.00 budget and were like "Oh, crap...we are broke..end it now...quick..roll credits!"
|
negative
|
"The King of Queens" could be divided into two eras.<br /><br />The first era, constituted of the first few seasons portrayed the issues of everyday life of a man and his wife making it through life in the city paycheck by paycheck.<br /><br />The second era, increased the scope of the show, addressing current popular culture and marital issues with a humorous spin.<br /><br />But besides all of that...<br /><br />This show was freaking hilarious.<br /><br />Kevin James, when not doing crap comedy films with Adam Sandler, is a genius of laughter, and his chemistry with Leah Remini was unparalleled on TV.<br /><br />Jerry Stiller as the psychotic live-in father in law added his own unique style of quirky humor, and Patton Oswalt as the "man-child" Spence Ulchin was amazing, (he's a great comedian too) "The King of Queens" was the final sitcom of the 1990s to go off the air, and it's a damn shame. Now, all we have to watch are the idiotic sitcoms full of untalented actors and actresses whose only appeal is their physical appearance. I like many fans of actually funny TV shows am now in a state of mourning
|
positive
|
Five years after she teamed up with James Cagney in "The Public Enemy", Mae Clarke makes another appearance, this time as his fiancée with Cagney's character on the other side of the law. It seems like she was calling more of the shots in their relationship as well, trying to get Johnny Cave to be a little more practical with his money and his career. You had to figure they'd get back together after she gave him the boot for challenging her crooked boss; those things have a way of working out in pictures.<br /><br />I got a kick out of watching Cagney in this one. I usually do, and here he looked like he might have auditioned that characteristic shoulder shrug move that he used to good effect in "Angels With Dirty Faces" portraying Rocky Sullivan. It was right after he threw Cavanaugh (Robert Gleckler) out of his office during the first attempt at bribing the new Weights and Measures boss. He turns to the camera and hitches up as if entirely pleased with his response to the crook - very cool.<br /><br />It's my understanding that this wasn't one of Cagney's Warner films, but it might as well have been. Warner's often took up the cause for the common man, and the expose of crooked merchants and the politicians who protected them would have been right up their alley. You also have those great New York City street scenes depicting cars and shops of the era, with home made signs pricing flour at eighteen cents a pound. Hey, how about the furniture store selling the living room set for a hundred eighty nine dollars, you might get a single stick chair for that price today.<br /><br />Best part of the picture just might be that meat counter scene when Cagney, James Burke (Aloysius) and the butchers play catch with an underweight chicken. One of the film's lighter moments, but you get an idea how tense people can get when they're caught cheating. Same with the truck driver who's pressured by Johnny into signing for an accurate delivery; he just wasn't used to doing that.<br /><br />All in all, a nice diversion from Cagney's more typical gangster presence, even if not up to the standard of his feature films. It's easy enough to obtain as one of a handful of public domain Cagney pictures out there, and often found in relatively inexpensive compilations.
|
positive
|
In Brooklyn a century ago, the rivalry between Chuck Connors and Steve Brodie and their competing volunteer fire brigades leads to Brodie's famous bet that he can jump off the Brooklyn Bridge. This is a story which will be familiar to a lot of people through a Bugs Bunny spoof, "Bowery Bugs" from 1949.<br /><br />This generally very enjoyable film would probably be more widely available if it were not for the notorious and unsettling scene involving some Chinese tenement dwellers -- a time capsule of antediluvian racial attitudes, giving the film a great deal of historical interest, in my view.
|
positive
|
ROLL is a wonderful little film. Toby Malone plays an 18 year old kid (very well acted, by the way) who is into soccer. Malone's cousin takes him out the night before his big game on an adventure with many twists and turns involving two gym bags, a drug lord, some tough bikers, some cops, and some prostitutes ... and the movie keeps us guessing as to which characters are on which side of the law, what the contents of either gym bag is, and even what gender a key biker is. Parts of it reminded me of LOCK STOCK AND TWO SMOKING Barrels.<br /><br />For me, ROLL reinforced three opinions that I already held before seeing ROLL. Those opinions are: 1. I really want to visit Australia one day. The country and cities are beautiful and it looks like such a cool place for a vacation.<br /><br />2. Some of the best filmmakers in the are Australian. The cinematography in ROLL was especially impressive. I loved the stylized colors and lighting in many of the scenes.<br /><br />3. Australian women are HOT!
|
positive
|
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.
|
negative
|
Director and co-writer Alejandro Amenabar didn't make things easy for viewers of his taut, a bit overlong but very disturbing story, accurately based on a Spanish man's struggle to obtain assisted suicide. "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside") is gripping and its impact far exceeds the time spent in the theater.<br /><br />With the award-winning Canadian movie, "The Barbarian Invasions," folks got to see a family along with a coterie of devoted friends address the wish of a beloved albeit irascible man to end his life. In that movie, the center of attention suffered from progressive, incurable cancer and his descent into a terminal stage was fast. Emotional as the scenes were, death was inevitable - the question was how gentle could it be made through solicited intervention.<br /><br />Ramon Sampedro (brilliantly played by Javier Bardem) is a different story. For well over two decades he's been a quadriplegic because of a diving accident. (Very sharp viewers may detect a terrible irony as to why he ended in that condition because of his improvident dive.) Once a world traveler and lover of beautiful women, he now lies trapped in an immobile body, his every need attended to by a truly devoted family who willingly surrender much of their privacy and time to sustain their beloved relation.<br /><br />Rosa (Lola Duenas), a single mom of two small boys, enters the Sampedro household out of what might have been mere curiosity to learn about the paralyzed man's plight but she becomes both an emotionally supportive centerpiece for Ramon as well as an amusing but occasionally aggravating presence. A nice performance by Duenas.<br /><br />The problem, of course, is that Sampedro isn't sick in the normal sense. He may well live for decades more with proper care. So his softly but persistently voiced desire to end his life with "dignity" creates a moral dilemma for friends and relatives who, not surprisingly, react from different ethical and religious perspectives.<br /><br />Ramon is the poster quad of a group dedicated to changing Spain's laws concerning assisted suicide. "Death with Dignity" is their watchword. Gene (Clara Segura) is a sensitive activist who enlists the aid of pro bono publico counsel, Julia (Belen Rueda). Julia has her own health issues which carry an indefinite but catastrophic prognosis. Happily married to a devoted spouse, she bonds emotionally with her client.<br /><br />What follows is an acutely sensitive interplay of values and emotions. Ramon lives with his brother and wife, their technophile teenage son, not the intellectual Ramon is, and his aged dad who can't stop grieving over his son's cataclysmic descent into absolute helplessness.<br /><br />The moral and legal issues are played out through excellent acting and short vignettes including a courtroom scene in which formalism triumphs over any judicial interpretation that might take into account Ramon's feelings and views. It may be Spain but the issues are alive in most countries, including the U.S.<br /><br />Especially amusing is a shouted, first floor to bedroom, debate between Ramon with a drop-in, lecturing Jesuit priest, also a quadriplegic but one whose hidebound dogma casually masks the absence of a soul.<br /><br />Special kudos to Mabel Rivera, Ramon's sister-in-law-Manuela, for a wrenchingly authentic portrayal of a strong woman who holds the family together. And the same compliment fulsomely extends to Belen Rueda, Julia, who segues from objective advocate to close friend to a woman hurtling towards a dark fate.<br /><br />The director imposes no value judgments allowing each character full range to express his or her feelings effectively and, at times, movingly. Like "Dead Man Walking," this movie can support any view about its deadly subject.<br /><br />No one can stop a person from committing suicide if he/she is determined but the universal tragedy of the world's Ramons is that without assistance, life in a body in which only the heart beats and only the head can move is a sentence no court could pronounce on the most depraved of criminals.<br /><br />The cinematography is well-matched to the story and the beautiful Galician scenes are an intended contrast to the limited views the once globe-trotting Ramon experiences from his special bed.<br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
Count Laszlo (Ralph Fiennes) has just been transferred to a hospital in Italy during World War II. He is horrifically burned from an ambush. His nurse Hana (Juliette Binoche) tends to him, body and mind, for she fears, quite rightly, that he may be a very troubled soul. In the course of his care, the Count starts to tell Hana of his recent past. It seems he worked in a government capacity in Africa, where he met a beautiful married lady named Katherine (Kristin Scott Thomas). Although they tried to avoid each other, they fell in love. After a brief affair, Katherine called it quits, leaving the Count desolate. Even so, the two would meet again, under heart-wrenching circumstances. Meanwhile, Hana herself falls for a Sihk man in the British bomb squad. Yet, the war is raging relentlessly. Can love exist when the world is in turmoil? This is a tremendous film, based on an equally fine but complex novel. The plot has many story lines that are woven together beautifully, each of them poignant beyond description. The script itself is elegant and contains many memorable lines. Fiennes is magnificent, both as the burn victim and as the man who thought love was a myth. Scott Thomas is also quite fine as the woman who fights against her passions. As for Binoche, she richly deserved the Oscar that she was presented, as her nurse is a shining example of hope in a hopeless situation. The scenery is utterly gorgeous, as are the costumes, the direction, and the production. If you have missed out on viewing this film, rectify that soon, very soon. The English Patient will remain one of the greatest achievements in film for centuries to come.
|
positive
|
The peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.<br /><br />The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.<br /><br />This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies.
|
negative
|
Two dysfunctional brothers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) get tired of competing for who is the bigger f***-up and who Daddy (Albert Finney) loves more, so they hatch a hair-brained scheme to rob Mommy and Daddy's jewelry store so that they can clear their debts and start fresh. Sounds like a great plan except that this is a suspenseful 1970's style melodrama about a heist gone wrong, and boy, do things really go wrong here for our hapless duo and everyone involved. Lasciviously concocted by screenwriter Kelly Masterson and classically executed by director Sidney Lumet, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" uses the heist as its McGuffin to delve deep into family drama.<br /><br />Contrary to popular belief, Sidney Lumet is not dead. At age 83, he has apparently made a deal with the Devil to deliver one last great film. Lumet was at his zenith in the 1970's with films like "Dog Day Afternoon," "Serpico," and one of my favorite films of all time, "Network". He has somehow managed to make a film that bears all the hallmarks of his classics while intertwining some more modern elements (graphic sexuality, violence, and playing with time-frames and POV's) into a crackling, vibrant, lean, mean, and provocative melodrama. One can only hope that some of the modern greats (like Scorsese or Spielberg) who emerged during the same decade Lumet was at the top of his game will have this much chutzpah left when they reach that age.<br /><br />Lumet is a master at directing people walking through spaces to create tension and develop characters. As the cast waltzes through finely appointed Manhattan offices and apartments his slowly moving camera creates a palpable sense of anxiety as we never know who might be around the next corner or what this person might do in the next room. Also amazing is how Lumet utilizes the multiple POV and shifting time-frame approach. The coherent and classical presentation he uses makes the similarly structured films of wunderkinds Christopher Nolan and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu seem like amateur hour.<br /><br />Of course, what Lumet is best at is directing amazing ensemble casts and tricking them into acting within an inch of their lives. Philip Seymour Hoffman has never been, and most likely never will be, better than he is here. Albert Finney's quietly searing portrayal of a father betrayed and at the end of his rope is a masterpiece to watch unfold. Ethan Hawke, normally a nondescript pretty boy, is perfect as the emotionally crippled younger brother who has skated by far too long on his charms and looks. The coup-de-grace, however, is the series of scenes between Hoffman and Marisa Tomei, eerily on point as his flighty trophy wife. Lumet runs them through the gamut of emotions that culminate in a scene that is the best of its kind since William Holden taunted Beatrice Straight right into a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in "Network." <br /><br />The Devil of any great film is in the details, from Albert Finney's tap of his car's trunk that won't close due to a fender bender, to the look Amy Ryan (fresh off her amazing turn in "Gone Baby Gone") gives her ex-husband Ethan Hawke at his mawkish promise to his little girl all three of them knows he won't keep, to the systematic unraveling of a family on the skids, to the dialog begging for cultists to quote it (my favorite line being the hilariously threatening "Do you mind if I call you Chico?") to the excellent Carter Burwell score. "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is the film of the year. If something emerges to best it, then we know a few other deals must've been brokered with Old Scratch.
|
positive
|
After having read two or three negative reviews on the main page of IMDb for "Pushing Daisies", and having literally minutes ago finished watching the final episode, I thought it was about time I said what I thought of PD.<br /><br />First off, to address what some of the issues that I have seen other people having with this show: something along the lines of "I expect the people who have been woken from the dead to have a more realistic reaction". Realistic, on this show ? Pushing Daisies is, truly, pure and utter escapism. It's colour palette, the dialogue used, the scenarios, situations, music: all of it, to me, is just an escape from everyday life. An escape from the mundane and boring. It is here where Pushing Daisies exceeds exceptionally well Pushing Daisies isn't for everyone: A large majority of the television audience don't "get" it, for some people it's just too out there and silly. But for people like me, even from the first episode I watched of it (Season 2's "Frescorts") and I was just blown away by the show. From then on, I bought both the box sets and they have barely been out of my DVD player. Other people I know can't stand it, it really seems to be like Marmite.<br /><br />The show follows the adventures of Ned, the Piemaker, with a magic finger, who brings back childhood sweetheart Charlotte Charles, works in association with private investigator Emerson Cod, owns the Pie-hole and employs waitress Olive Snook. Completing the main cast members are aunts Lily and Vivian, whom Charlotte (Chuck) is never allowed to see. They live in a fantasy world where the dead are brought back to life, everything is shown with a wonderfully bright splash of colour, and narrated by Jim Dale.<br /><br />Other than outlining the basics of the show, I really can't praise it much more without saying: Just watch it. Despite being screwed over by the Writer's Guild of America strike, with only 22 episodes ever to be made, it provides wonderful plot twists, story lines, characters and situations while providing (for me) a satisfying ending (yes, I could tell it had been tacked on the end and rushed, but I was still happy with the way it went out). Whether it is creative or just pretentious, for a lot of people (me included) it made the most addictive and wonderful viewing, and I hope for the future of television that more shows like this are created so I'm not left with just 22, 40 minute memories of what true entertainment can be.
|
positive
|
And what is its genre? The backstage expose story; what theatrical life is really like behind those Broadway (and other) curtains. It certainly has a lot of competition: Singin' in the Rain both I and II (1929 and 1952), 42nd Street, Golddiggers of (You name the year.); Dames of 1934; Noises Off (1992) from the farcical side and A Star is Born I and II from the 1930s and the 1950s from the tragical side: not to mention Summer Stock of 1950: the list keeps rollin' along. So what makes this movie so special? And why are there so few comments about this stunningly great movie? Have so few people actually seen it? How amazing to see a younger Frank Langella pre-Dracula and pre-Frost-Nixon by 30 years! How amazing to see the fresh and talented Tom Hulce so pre-Amadeus! And yet another superb Stiller! What a wonderful line-up of talented people at their very best from so long ago! And such a script! Who was this David Shaber? So full of realistic disillusion and pathos compared to the usual sentimentality and feel-good comedy! As especially exemplified by the Star-Is-Born-like episode where the heroine achieves Broadway while the Langella character has to content himself with still another provincial tour.<br /><br />Langella's subsequent hysterical and sadistic blowup against the star-struck Latin teacher and his granddaughter in which he vents his fury and frustration is just one of many fantastic and psychologically real moments in the film. (The Latin teacher and his love affair with backstage life certainly echo Marlene Dietrich and her seduced professor in The Blue Angel of 1929.) Another in the series of mercenary and cold-hearted agents like Kevin McCarthy who was preceded by Burt Lancaster in The Sweet Smell of Success (1957) and succeeded by Alan Alda in Clubland (2001) in movie history. The sexual liberation of the Hulce character recalls similar incidents in O'Neill's great comedy Ah, Wilderness.<br /><br />And what a tribute to the vanished operettas of long ago: The Red Mill of Victor Herbert; Rose Marie and The Vagabond King of Rudolf Friml; The Desert Song of Sigmund Romberg etc. What satirical insertions of bits from the great plays like Romeo and Juliet. Tributes to the theater itself as expostulated by the star Langella. The richness and depth of this movie are simply endless. And to be saddled by such a title! Who could have an inkling of what this great movie is about from such a ridiculous and unsuggestive title? But on the other hand, what title could one have applied to such a magnificent drama which might have lived up to its stirring, emotional content?<br /><br />PS: I just saw (2009) Frank Langella in his latest acting spectacular: as Richard Nixon in Frost-Nixon. How this great actor after 30 years simply goes from triumph to triumph!
|
positive
|
A very positive message for our youth is shown in this movie. Through the sport of rugby as a mean, a High School rugby coach leads his players in their behavior and lifestyle, ON and OFF the field. <br /><br />The acting and directing are good. The rugby shots are just OK if you know some rugby or really cool if don't know much about it.<br /><br />I recommend this movie, worth watching, especially at a point in time when this sport is gaining more and more adepts every day.<br /><br />The plot is based on a true story taking place in Utah. The coach portrayed in this movie has been at the helm of the Highlanders for over 30 years (and loosing only game every 3 years). <br /><br />Enjoy!
|
positive
|
This show was a really good one in many ways, although certainly an atypical Western with the hero (?) riding around on a motorcycle rather than a horse, due to the 1914 setting, very "late" for a Western, which tend usually to be set between 1866 and 1890. I remember some controversy about its cancellation at the time but didn't really watch it during its time on NBC. When I came to see it and love it was a decade later when I was in the Army stationed in Germany and it was shown every week from the beginning on Armed Forces Television. By then, Margot Kidder was famous as Lois Lane but I'll also always think of her as Nichols' girlfriend. In a lot of ways, Nichols was a lot like Maverick; both were much more attracted to getting rich with little effort than they were fighting. It was in the little TV magazine that they distributed at the PX (not really an authorized edition of "TV Guide" but made to resemble it as closely as possible without getting into copyright trouble) that I first learned the real story behind the cancellation. I really wonder what the next season with the more violent twin would have been like if they had really made it as planned. Of course, by the time this show was made the "Western era" of TV had been in decline for around a decade; someday I hope to be able to write that the "reality era" has been in decline for that long! While "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza" were still running, they were both nearing their ends and it had been years since a new Western had really caught on; I think that this trend did a lot to hold "Nichols" back, and was the main reason that NBC executives doubted that it would ever find a large audience But to me, a good Western, unlike a show set in contemporary times, is somewhat timeless, as are other "period" shows; changing fashions and the like do nothing to make them look any more "dated" than they were supposed to be, and I think that watching this show, 10 years after it was produced, is really what brought this point home to me. Also, this show is an early pairing of Garner and Stuart Margolin, who is really one of the all-time great sidekicks, and not just in Westerns.
|
positive
|
this movie was just plain dumb i do not think it was scary at all i went in hoping to be shocked and scared but was mostly laughing some of the scenes were just to fake and thrown together blood scenes were extremely over cg and some of the mutants were ridiculously gay looking it also sucked because the acting was just plain horrible u think they could get some good actors and most of the characters i hated just because how stupid and lame they acted even though they were supposed to be in the military i get to watch movies for free and seen many people walking out im guessing because it was so dumb kinda glad i didn't have to pay for it in short DUMB ASS MOVIE don't see it...but then again thats my opinion
|
negative
|
A fashion designer trips over a cat and falls into a pool, hitting her head on something floating on the surface. With rather cheesy effects (this was a TV movie) she floats up out of her body. She floats through a tunnel of rings of swirling orange smoke, and black rigid figures tip into her view (they look like the mannequins in her apartment). I almost thought I was watching a Jess Franco movie.... As her friends revive her, a black arm grabs her by the wrist, and she has to struggle to get loose. When she is revived, she remembers everything, and has a nasty bruise on her forearm.<br /><br />Shortly thereafter, she nearly gets hit by an out-of-control car that comes up on the sidewalk behind her. On Halloween, she decides with her boyfriend to go to Mexico for a vacation. When she gets there, she's surprised to find it's the Day of the Dead. They're annoyed by another American tourist who keeps following them, and he almost drowns them.<br /><br />The designer is encouraged to join a group of people who've had near death experiences. They've all experienced the tunnel, but not the black figures or the repeated near escapes from death. One of them has, and he's very anxious. She's also encouraged to meet with a psychic.<br /><br />A Doctor tells her about people he calls "Walkers" (the name of the novel this was based on). They're people who supposedly died of one cause that, when examined, prove to have died of another cause. Thus it's like they continued walking around after dying until they died again, but he blames it on poor record-keeping.<br /><br />I watched this on the 102 minute video, and it felt awfully long. I can't imagine that there's actually a 192 minute version! Perhaps if it was meant to be watched over two or more nights on TV it would better be watched that way than in one sitting.<br /><br />I've only read one Gary Brandner novel, Floater, and if it is representative of his work, he's not the most original of writers. Floater had the common plot of: picked on kid kills people in revenge. Even the variation was pretty common: picked on kid dies and kills people years later in revenge from beyond the grave. And in fact it has a point in common with this movie, in that the kid practices astral projection, and when he is drowned he floats up out of his body as here. I don't know how closely From the Dead of Night follows his novel Walkers. I understand the Howling movies don't bear much resemblance to his novels.<br /><br />It's quite a slow movie, and the special effects and cinematography are really held down by the (presumably) low budget and made-for-TV shortcomings. There are a lot of easily recognizable character actors in it. It also feels very dated, more early to mid 1980s than 1989. I found it to be boring. A much better low-budget movie covering similar subject matter that I don't think has dated as badly is Sole Survivor (1983) (arguably the inspiration for the 2000s Final Destination movies). It blows From the Dead of Night away.
|
negative
|
Just finished watching The Groove Tube which I first saw about 23 years ago when I was a teenager staying up way past my bedtime watching HBO with my brother and his best friend. We had also watched Animal House just before that so we saw two movies that starred an SNL alumna and had some naked breasts. Good thing our parents were asleep the whole time! Anyway, there were lots of weird and funny things in this movie that were eye-openers like the Brown 25 sequence of the Uranus Industries commercial ("with the taste of beef stew" says the announcer as what is apparently human excrement comes out of a white tube. Ewww!) or the face of the puppet talking about VD (a scrotum with a small penis with eyes glued on). Chevy Chase and Richard Belzer made their feature film debuts here. Chase is hilarious whether doing a Geritan spot with a woman stripping, having his hands have sex in a "Let Fingers Do It" commercial, or singing "Four Leaf Clover" with co-writer/director Ken Shapiro drumming his hands on his head. Belzer teams with Shapiro in "The Dealers" movie, and on "Channel One Evening News" with one wild bit having Belzer as a black prostitute trying tricks on reporter Ken who plays Lionel here. "Lionel, that sounds like a train that I'm going to ride like a Choo-Choo!" Other outrageous bits include "The Koko Show" with Shipiro as a kid clown show host who, after ordering the "people over ten" to leave the room, reads requests of his viewers like passages of "Fanny Hill"! Or how about the Olympics segment with a German couple making love being announced by two men (one of them Spanish) as they get explicit while "Please Stand By" keeps interrupting on the screen! Or the animated segment on "The Dealers" which depicts dancing toilets after Shapiro ingested some marijuana! Not everything's so dirty. Besides the "Four Leaf Clover" skit, at the end there's a highly amusing music segment with Ken lip-syncing his own recording of "Just You, Just Me" while dancing with suit and briefcase around the city with occasionally a cop (co-writer Lane Sarasohn) joining in. So, in summation this is one weirdly, funny movie that seemed to influence other like films (Tunnelvision, Kentucky Fried Movie) and possibly Saturday Night Live (which made Chevy that show's first star) and, despite some dated elements, can still amuse today. P.S. While I liked hearing Curtis Mayfield's "Move On Up" during the gorillas dancing/hitchhiking beginning sequence, I did wonder what the point was with the sequence of the hitchhiker and the woman who picked him up, having them running from the car, stripping on the run, and then having the naked man get caught by the cop who stopped on the road. Guess it's one of those '70s streaking things...
|
positive
|
kite runner is undoubtedly one of the most amazing books i have read in the recent past. i perhaps had very high expectations from the film, but none the less the movie was good, the entire setting seemed realistic. nothing was made to fancy. the dialogs were not very attractive or powerful, they were just right. The movie was not a bad experience at all, especially at the last 15mins ,where it got real emotional and even the hardest man would probably cry.but my imagination was far better than the movie...i cried more upon reading the novel than seeing the movie. but overall a good movie to see for those of u who are not readers. but the readers- the novel would be a better experience,so if at all u want to see the movie, read the novel first and then compare it to the movie.
|
positive
|
I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes "Boggy Creek II" and "Mutant" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.<br /><br />One to avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
From a modern sensibility, it's sometimes hard to watch older films. It's annoying to have to watch the stereotypical wallflower librarian have to take off her glasses and become pretty and stupid to win a man. Especially such a shallow and inconstant man. He's obviously a player (I wouldn't trust him to stay true to her) who doesn't want to settle down, who only looks at dumb attractive women and always calls them "baby" (ick!). Even after she totally changes her appearance and her life for him, he only goes to her after he's (supposedly) rejected by another woman and learns that Connie spent all her money renovating a boat for him. I wanted her to stand up to him, not pathetically chase after him! His sudden conversion within a few minutes was totally unrealistic and did not work for me.<br /><br />Apart from that subplot, I did like the movie. How can you not like sailors dancing with each other?! (You can tell they were from San Francisco.... ;D) The "rehearsal" dance was great, watching Ginger Rogers purposefully fall in and out of the "correct steps" was great. The last dance scene "Face the Music" with the beautiful costumes and the art deco set was beautiful. And I really enjoyed "We Saw the Sea" (though they did use it a few too many times, as if they realized it was their best song). <br /><br />Anyway, the plot was a bit weak, like most musicals (IMO) - and the songs were OK, but the dancing was worth watching the film for. I wish they could have showed some shots of San Francisco since that was were the film was supposedly set.<br /><br />It's also weird to see such a lighthearted naval film with the knowledge of what Hitler was already doing at that time. I have to try to suspend all knowledge to submerge myself into a made up fantasy land.
|
positive
|
"Houseboat Horror" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish "The Bleeder".4 out of 10.
|
negative
|
I recommend that movie viewers if in the New York City area go to the Intrepid museum and get some idea of how closed in and cramped the living was for the crews of World War II vintage submarines. How much more so that must have been for the seamen during World War I. It must have truly been hell below.<br /><br />Walter Huston and Robert Montgomery head the cast of Hell Below, Huston as the by the book captain and Montgomery as his free wheeling number two. They're both quite believable as Naval officers and the rest of the cast like Robert Young, Eugene Palette, Jimmy Durante, Madge Evans, Sterling Holloway, etc. fill their roles quite nicely.<br /><br />The silent service got more popular during World War II and after. It's amazing, but I could name a whole slew of submarine pictures like Torpedo Run, Operation Pacific, Hellcats of the Navy, Run Silent, Run Deep and many more and you'll see the same plot situations in all of them. I guess there truly is a limit on situations as well.<br /><br />Jimmy Durante's performance is interesting. He's pretty funny and his scene with the boxing kangaroo while on shore leave is very funny indeed. But I'd have to say a character like him in those cramped quarters is probably very necessary for morale. If you don't have someone like that to break the tension on board a submarine, you ought to get one transferred to your ship immediately.<br /><br />The highlight for me however is Sterling Holloway's death scene. Very similar to Sean McClory's in Island in the Sky. It will haunt you long after you've seen this film.
|
positive
|
Fay Grim is the continuation of a story begun ten years earlier with Hartley's Henry Fool. I haven't seen the earlier film, and I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I can only regard the current film on its own merits.<br /><br />For most people, Hal Hartley's style of film-making is something that you either like or you don't. His combination of action, drama, absurdity and dry, ironic humour really resonates with me, and Fay Grim is no exception. It has an air of sharply-written intelligent parody that had myself and many in the Melbourne International Film Festival audience laughing out loud. For the first half of the film it was relentless and delivered with deadpan straightness. It's a style of humour sadly lacking in cinemas and a welcome relief to the mindless teen comedies that Hollywood pumps out like pancakes.<br /><br />During the second half of the film, the humour starts to thin as the film morphs into an international espionage/conspiracy thriller. Whether this was Hartley's intention or whether he ran out of ideas is not clear, but I think a bit of editing or re-writing to cut fifteen minutes off the film would have maintained the film's original momentum.<br /><br />The performances were generally good, particularly Parker Posey and Jeff Goldblum, who had the most screen time. Saffron Burrows, James Urbaniak, Carl Montgomery and Elina Löwensohn all played good support roles. The film's visuals were nice (set in New York, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul) and the music (also by Hartley) was good without being intrusive. The film is well-written and I enjoyed this it immensely. If you like Hartley's earlier work, you'll probably like this.
|
positive
|
"CIA Codename:Alexa" is an absolute horrible rip off of Luc Besson's classic film "La Femme Nikita"(1990). The film is basically about a woman who is taken in and trained by the CIA and is forced to do a secret mission for them. (Pretty much the same story structure of La Femme Nikita) The acting combo of Lorenzo Lamas and O.J. Simpson is perhaps the worst in cinema history. Lamas' "acting" is simply a bad Steven Segal impersonation. Watching Orenthal act in this film is an excruciating experience.<br /><br />The writing and acting is so poor in this film at times it is laughable. There are so many action movie "conventions" in the film it is ridiculous: unnecessary car explosions, people flying thru glass windows, terrorists, bad ponytails, etc. The musical score resembles David Michael Frank's score for "Hard to Kill" (1990), which furthers the Steven Segal theme of this movie. There is plenty of martial arts in the film, and it is pretty well done for a low budget American production. The mindless action and over the top acting never lets up, and I have to admit I was mildly entertained. <br /><br />Lorenzo Lamas had the look of an action star back in the early 90's but he is certainly no action star, that is why he is doing soap operas and not action blockbusters. My recommendation is that you skip "CIA Codename:Alexa" and check out "La Femme Nikita" instead.
|
negative
|
A young Korean artist lives in Amsterdam. She is a bit of a loner and has never had a serious relationship, insisting that she is "waiting" for the right person. She works in the public square, drawing portraits for passersby but, for herself, she also indulges in painting her favorite flowers, daisies. But, all of a sudden, she has a secret admirer. Flowers are delivered to her residence every day at 4:15, usually daisies, yet she can not catch the sender in the act. This is because, unknown to her, her beau is a Korean hit-man, and he wishes to remain hidden, for now. One day in the square, however, another attractive Korean man sits for the artist and happens to be carrying a pot of daisies. She concludes that he is her shy hero and, also, the man she has been waiting to find. This second gentleman, too, has a secret; he is an Interpol agent. The assassin can see everything that transpires in the square, due to having an apartment close by. Naturally, he is disturbed that another man has entered the young girl's life. How will this shadowy love triangle play out? This is a beautiful picture to watch. The setting in Amsterdam and the surrounding countryside is very, very lovely. Add in three most attractive young Korean actors and, visually, any viewer has a stunning panorama in front of them. The story is quite nice, too, being a mixture of drama and action, with a dash of the unexpected. Costumes are very fetching and the production values, high. In short, anyone searching for a quality foreign film with a compelling story and great scenery would find this movie a wonderful choice for a diverting evening. Should you have someone's hand to hold during the view, so much the better.
|
positive
|
For the attention of Chuck Davis and Emefy: I saw PHANTOM LADY many years ago, when I was not yet a jazz buff. There is an exhibition going until end of June in Paris's brand new MUSEE DU QUAI BRANLY, named LE SIECLE DU JAZZ, not to be missed, with as a special entertainment NINE excerpts from jazz movies, including PHANTOM LADY's famous drums sequence. I've seen Gene Krupa - and Elisha Cook Jr - in almost all their film appearances, and I can confirm the following: 1.Elisha Cook Jr was DUBBED in the movie. That was some progress, since in most of his other appearances he was KILLED (mainly in Howard Hawks's THE BIG SLEEP). 2. Krupa probably dubbed Cook in PL. I could recognize his style, since he had already graduated from the tom-tom used (and abused) at the beginning of his career - namely in 1937's Hollywood HOTEL's SING, SING, SING sequence - and eventually got everything that was possible from what we call in French "la caisse claire". 3. The sequence from PL, at least as shown in the Museum,is not censored.harry carasso, Paris, France
|
positive
|
The movie was fantastic. If your a fan of Bams' cky videos, jackass, or his show Viva la Bam, you cant help but like it. I have a few friends who aren't fans that enjoyed it, and others who thought it wasn't that great. Those who didn't like it were mostly female friends, they really didn't appreciate some of the crude humor, that personally i think made the movie so funny. I'm pretty sure the entire movie was filmed in Bams home town, which includes a lot of his regularly visited locations. The cast of is made up of all his friends and cky buddies, and also includes some big name pro skateboarders too. The soundtrack is phenomenal, with music by HIM. In my opinion, Haggard has it all. A great plot, characters you'll never see anywhere else. Plenty of humor great music and a cast that was dedicated to the project.
|
positive
|
As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical "good time" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.
|
negative
|
The Color Purple is a masterpiece. It displays the amazing acting abilities of Whoopi Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, and Danny Glover. Not only is Steven Spielberg the most incredible director of all time but his versatility shines through in this film. If you ever want to see what a movie can do watch this. It's a beautiful portrayal of one of the most moving stories of all time!
|
positive
|
7 if you're a kid- 6 if you claim to be an adult. This semi-sequel to the Lion King sees to spin off side characters Timone and Pumba, retelling the original story through their eyes, including the story of how they met. In the grand tradition of Disney, inferior sequels are made, and occasionally TV series featuring the adventures of minor characters from their biggest hits. You can be as sceptical as you want about this, but kids and fans of the series will likely not care; their are enough jokes and songs and interesting things to ensure that this is one of the few above average sequels. This works because of the charm of the much-loved central characters, the quick pace, the in-jokes involving the first film, and for older viewers there are some funny gags. The animation is as good as ever, if a little less flamboyant than the original, but the plot here is all about taking it easy, Hakuna Matata.<br /><br />Timone and Pumba decide to watch the events of the first film, frequently stopping mid-film to joke about parts of it, like a real audience. We see how Timone is a near outcast, he feels he does not fit in and decides to go looking beyond what he sees to find his ideal home. On the way he meets Pumba, another outcast and they become friends. Soon they meet Simba, a Lion cub, natural predator of T and P, but they form a trio. However, when Simba realises he must follow his own destiny and leave the group, it is up to the others to decide whether to help or not, and how. Of course the usual Disney elements and themes are here, friendship, good versus evil etc. The plot is simple but works on many levels, making it smarter than your average animated movie. As the CG movies appear, Disney's traditional form must become smarter, but not forget the roots which made them popular. Toy Story and all that have come since have been clever, with jokes to suit all ages, and it seems this is the way the market is shifting. However, there will always be a place for films like this, and you cannot go wrong buying this for the youngsters.<br /><br />7 out of 10
|
positive
|
Unfortunately, this movie is absolutely terrible. It's not even laughably bad, just plain bad. The actors do their best with what is the cheesiest script ever. How scary can a movie be when the climax actually involves a roomful of millions of styrofoam peanuts?
|
negative
|
I saw this movie primarily to see Brooke Burke (as Jill), who I had meet briefly in LA at a modeling trade show, in her first feature film. I was hoping to see more of her, but thought she did very well acting her role. Since she is such a beautiful and poised TV host, and model, it was not surprising. I was left wondering why she was killed, and what happened as a result. Maybe I just missed it.<br /><br />I wasn't really sure about the genre of this movie, and although I liked the actors I felt like it was for a college audience. I tried to keep an open mind considering horror wasn't my favorite genre, but felt like I had outgrown the gags. It seemed to drag out in some places, leave you guessing in some places about what powers the evil professor had, and, like a lot of other films had an unsatisfying ending.<br /><br />Having written a couple of scripts, I know a lot of this is difficult and may come down to personal opinions, how many movies you have seen & studied, and those you relate with at a point in time.<br /><br />In a nutshell, I found it interesting, but not a satisfying plot and ending for me. If Jill (Brooke Burke) would have returned through the portal in the end and kicked everyone's ass that would be a satisfying ending and would earn a higher rating.
|
negative
|
The inspiration for the "Naked Gun" movies casts Leslie Nielsen - who had only recently started doing comedy* - as the incompetent but heroic Frank Drebin, always having to solve an absurd case. Like "Airplane!" and the movies based on the series, the humor relies on Mel Brooks-style spot gags and silly comments (namely the "yes it is" remarks), along with the fact that Nielsen remains very serious despite the nonsense around him. And of course, the final frame, in which something keeps moving.<br /><br />It's too bad that the show only had six episodes. At least it spawned the movies. You can't go wrong with Leslie Nielsen in these sorts of roles. I suspect that they all had fun filming it. Really funny.<br /><br />*Before "Airplane!", Leslie Nielsen had starred in movies like "Forbidden Planet", "Harlow" and "The Poseidon Adventure". As late as 1987 he co-starred in "Nuts" alongside Barbra Streisand and Richard Dreyfuss. But since the first "Naked Gun" movie it's been all comedy all the time.
|
positive
|
What could have been a good story was destroyed by the ludicrous time travel scenario. If something was altered in the past that changed evolution and humans never developed, the time machine would never have been built. If something from the past was brought into the present, it would have no effect on the past.<br /><br />I really wish film producers would run their ideas past an actual scientist before finishing the script. Even if you suspend reality and assume time travel is possible, you have to stick to logic.<br /><br />OTOH, Ben Kingsley seemed to be having a great time with his over the top performance. All of the other actors seemed to be doing the best they could as well. It was the writing that left them twisting in the wind.<br /><br />"Back to the Future" handled it better.
|
negative
|
On Halloween a town is terrorized by a lunatic with a big pumpkin for a head. Bad acting compromised mostly of local talent and laughable special effects makes this one baaaaad. B-Movie Queen Linnea Quigley looks embarrassed to be a part of this one and even her considerable charm which has helped so many of her other films can't help this one. Pass this cheesy flick if you are looking for a good Halloween horror film and rent "Night of the Demons" which also stars Ms. Quigley.
|
negative
|
This show reminds me of an episode of "The Simpsons," where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. "Mind of Mencia" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives. <br /><br />Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on "Mind of Mencia." Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy "Mind of Mencia." For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.
|
negative
|
If you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.<br /><br />From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.<br /><br />Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.<br /><br />This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!
|
negative
|
It's sometimes difficult to watch such self-avowed "message films" from an earlier, seemingly-simpler era without a certain degree of cynicism. The issue of racism and religious tolerance is one that has been drummed into us from an early age, and, as we've grown, teachers and authority figures have sought out less blatant yet equally-effective means of getting the message across. 'The House I Live In (1945)' is about as unsubtle as "message films" come, and Frank Sinatra seems to be treating his audience like a child indeed, perhaps this was the point, as the short was no doubt intended primarily to influence younger film-goers. Even so, I found myself curiously affected when Sinatra launched into that sincere patriotic speech about what it really means to be an American
and I'm not even an American! Released just two months after the end of WWII, director Mervyn LeRoy greeted war-weary audiences with a message of tolerance, togetherness and, above all else, hope. The music ain't bad, either.<br /><br />Fresh-faced Frank Sinatra already a star, but not yet the superstar he'd become opens the film in a recording studio, booming out "If You Are But a Dream" with a full orchestral accompaniment. When, between songs, Frank goes outside for a smoko, he observes a large group of kids bullying a young Jewish boy, their taunts provoked purely by his differing religion. Ol' Blue Eyes quickly puts a stop to this childish behaviour, delicately branding the bullies "Nazi werewolves" and scolding their irrational prejudice. He then earnestly and good-naturely lectures the group on the plain silliness of racial and religious discrimination, assuring them that every American culture, however it differs from our own, is still American at heart
unless, of course, you're one of those bloody "Japs." There's a hint of hypocrisy in pleading for racial tolerance while presenting one nation as the collective enemy, though you could hardly blame Hollywood for being less than enthusiastic about the plight of the Japanese in 1945.<br /><br />Sinatra drives his point home with a wonderfully heartwarming rendition of "The House I Live In," which was written in 1943 by Abel Meeropol. When the songwriter first heard the song on film, he was furious that the filmmakers had completely excluded three of his verses, which he considered crucial to the message. These omissions were most likely due to time restraints, but Meeropol understandably didn't take too kindly to them, and reportedly had to be ejected from the cinema. When it was first released, 'The House I Live In' was deemed such an important short film that it won a Golden Globe for "Best Film for Promoting International Good Will" and a Honorary Oscar for all involved. In 2007, it was judged to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" and added to the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which is how I came to hear of it. While its approach may seem a little hokey sixty years later, this film remains quite watchable thanks to a young fella named Frank Sinatra.
|
positive
|
Thinking that it could only get better was the worst assumption I ever made....<br /><br />Drivvle does not describe this movie appropriately enough!<br /><br />Not only is the plot thin, but I get more emotional acting from my pet fish!<br /><br />It was a shame to see Pete Postlethwaite, whom I respect as an actor trying to do the best with the little he had to work with...<br /><br />I think that a cardboard cut out of Stephen Baldwin would have done a better job , and in fact have been more animate.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs! This could really be hazardous to your health!
|
negative
|
Though the movie may have been "true" to Lewis's book (in that the script was basically word-for-word, verbatim), it failed to capture any of the grandeur that would otherwise be associated with an epic story like this. The mythical creatures (unicorns, centaurs, griffins, ghouls, ghosts) are *drawn* in, and as in the previous review, the green-screen flying sequence was very hard to swallow. I nearly laughed to death when I saw the humanoid beavers with their giant stiff suits and buck teeth; I nearly cried when I heard the wolf's "howl--" a man in a grey fuzzy suit basically shrieking as loudly and as girlishly as he possibly could.<br /><br />All of the acting is tremendously forced, especially that of little Lucy Penvensie... I could only take so much indignation, desperation, and buck teeth in the (what felt like) fourteen hours of watching the movie. The actress who plays the White Witch, in all her histrionics, seems that she'd be more at home on stage, where a booming voice, spread arms, and a valiant effort at something Shakespearian would be more than welcome. <br /><br />The sets feel claustrophobic, whether the scenes are taking place indoors or outdoors. Indoors, it's as if BBC could only afford to spend $100 on constructing a set, and so it is very small, and all the characters are constantly huddled together. The White Witch's castle is a run-down, rotting countryside English castle filled with Styrofoam statues and bad lighting. When the Penvensie children are wandering through the woods-- actually, *any* scene in the woods-- feels like they are simply wandering around in circles. <br /><br />The only thing that looks decent in the film is Aslan, but you can bet that BBC probably blew the film's entire budget on building the mechanical feline. It looks great when it's standing still and before it starts speaking, but once it starts moving, you can't help but pity the poor man who has to be the rear-end in the lion suit. <br /><br />Yes, if you are a hardcore Narnia fan, you may want to see this version, simply because it preserves every word that Lewis ever wrote-- but Lewis was certainly no screenwriter, and a lot of the dialogue feels chunky and awkward when on screen. During the scene in which the children are at the Beavers' and getting ready to flee from the wolves, Mrs. Beaver's incessant, "oh, just ONE more thing, dearies, and then we will be ready to go," punctuated by the children's simultaneous cries and sighs and moans of "NO, Mrs. Beaver, PLEASE!" -- a scene of comic relief, so incongruous (they are supposed to be FLEEING from imminent danger, not wondering about whether to pack the sewing machine or not), detracts from the drama that the scene might otherwise have. In fact, the whole movie is peppered with directing faux pas such as these. <br /><br />I would recommend seeing the new Narnia (Disney 2005). The new movie, with updated effects, spectacular computer animation, great timing all around, and a gorgeous and scene- stealing White Witch (who plays her part with all the subtle evil of a seasoned politician, as opposed to a shrieking banshee) captures all of the grandeur and the magnificence of the world of Narnia without detracting the least bit from Lewis's original vision (I think). Lucy is a lot cuter (NO buck teeth, YAY!), as are the beavers (and realistically-sized), and bratty BBC Edmund has nothing on the divine, Desperately-Hungry-for-Acceptance-Insecure-and- Angsting-with-an-Inferiority-Complex Edmund that the new Disney version fronts. <br /><br />Unless you're the type who enjoys wasting time by making fun of campy movies, I would not recommend this film to anyone.
|
negative
|
I never really started watching the show until it was canceled and started showing re-runs. I actually enjoyed it for the first to third season. Once I saw the fourth and fifth one I was beginning to get irate. The first problem was that they did that irrelevant, scenario of history repeating itself (Jr having a kid like his parents did). The second had to be the one where they had everyone paired up with someone (ex: Katie and franklin) . The third one was when they made Jr even more idiotic than before which was beginning to be tedious and vexing to the point where I wanted to go into the T.V. and beat the stupidity out of him until he's unconscious . The fourth one had to be that zealous dork that Clarie claimed as a boyfriend. The fifth one had to be Katie, she was beginning to be too good for herself and was treated her "boyfriend" Franklin like the pushover he was. The last but not least was Noah Gray-Cabey!! Franklin, Franklin was just scary. It was like watching a terrible combination of Urkle and TJ Henderson only more annoying!!! They seriously jumped the shark when came he to the show. There was little to no realism to his character and the way he laughed was a sign of obvious force showing that Noah can't act. Eveytime I saw that kid just made me want slap he silly. However, B.F.(before frank) this show was funny and very entertaining.
|
negative
|
From the upper shelf of great Classic Books, comes this masterful story written by Pearl Buck. The book like the movie is called " The Good Earth." It relates the story of Wang Lung (Paul Muni) a simple Chinese farmer who begins his day with a trip to the 'Great House' where he has taken a slave woman called O-lan (Luise Rainer) and made her his wife. Almost from the beginning, she begins to adapt to his kindness by saving a small peach seed and planting it near her new home. During the following years, O-Lan proves her worth by steadfastly sharing her husband's toil, troubles and changing fortunes. Through the passing years, they raise a family and watch their simple household weather both feast and famine. Indeed, it's at the lowest point in their lives that each discovers the value of companionship, loyalty and Love. With the changing times, their growing family is both aided and threatened with friends and relatives, like their Uncle (Walter Connolly) who is a scoundrel and charlatan, but is compassionately tolerated. Wang has his 'Old Father' (Charley Grapewin) to advise and remind him of life's fragile and fickle nature. Two notable actors who make impressive appearances in this film are Keye Luke who plays Wang's Elder Son and Phillip Ahn who plays a Nationalist soldier. The film is in Black and White and is wonderfully adapted from the novel. Highly recommended for all audiences. ****
|
positive
|
SPOILERS<br /><br />I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.<br /><br />Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible. <br /><br />Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?<br /><br />2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.<br /><br />Recommended Films: The Mask.
|
negative
|
Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau began and ending their career together. Remember best as the Grumpiest of Old Men as well as the Oddest Couple to have ever made us laugh, Lemmon and Matthau were one of Hollywood's best loved comedy teams of the last 100 years. Not as "raunchy" as Pryor and Wilder, instead, they were the classic comedy team that reflected a more modern Marx Brothers routine. Such as the physical comedy as well as the mixed blend of chaos that Marx, Chaplin and Keaton were so famous for. In the Odd Couple, Lemmon and Matthau play complete opposites that create the chaos. The physical comedy is as unique as Chaplins. The joke is usually on themselves as oppose to passing the joke onto another. Not your typical guy film, it is in a way a coming of age comedy with two old men as oppose to two young teenagers in their prime. The chemistry between Lemmon and Matthau is entertainment enough. Although this movie isn't for everyone, this is a great comedy.
|
positive
|
My mom and I, rented this movie. I mean, we love those type of Sci-Fi flicks, whether they be big Hollywood flicks or Indy flicks.<br /><br />But oh, we were fooled!! Two journalists are investigating a UFO abduction in a small city in Texas. Halfway through, all the sudden things get all christain on us. My mom and I believe in god and Jesus and the Devil, but the way this movie was preaching it, made it annoying. All I really have to say, is that we are Christian, but even we like to have fun. So don't blame christians as a whole, just blame the christians who need to suck the fun out of this movie.<br /><br />In fact you can clearly understand the directors stance on UFO's, and that is that he believes it is all demonic. Now, i could say some words, but I will not. All I will say is, that DO NOT WATCH this movie, unless you feel like being preached. In fact many times it states that we must be perfect in order to enter heaven. Well, last time I checked, the only perfect person died on a cross.
|
negative
|
Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.<br /><br />Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.
|
negative
|
Although I have definitely read this particular Agatha Christie book at some point, I didn't remember anything about it except the name "Abernethie". Which is a good thing, because seeing this story unfold without knowing how it will play out allowed me to appreciate once more the sheer GENIUS of Agatha Christie: the way she misleads you and then pulls the rug out from under your feet is the main reason for her success and timelessness. In addition to her stories, the excellent production values, beautiful locations, wonderful music, top-notch acting, elegant directing, etc. are the reasons for this series' success and timelessness - and all those virtues are present in "After the Funeral". A word of advice: be alert right from the start - there are clues dropped all over the place even in the opening sequence! There are some quite unnerving moments as well, in contrast to the peaceful-looking English-countryside locations, and some small touches of humor. A must-see for mystery buffs, and just a very good film in general. (***)
|
positive
|
Now, I realize that most people on here trash YOUNG WARRIORS or hail it as "so bad it's funny" type entertainment, but let me make something clear: It's actually a quality piece of low rent action, if you're willing to watch such cinema without a critical eye. In fact, it's a good deal more entertaining and thought provoking than the bulk of the action films of the 80s.<br /><br />The key is in the film's subject matter. I'm always a sucker for movies that tackle the subject of vigilantism, especially when they ambitiously probe into the psyches of the characters involved. YOUNG WARRIORS may not have the intelligence or sensitivity of the first DEATH WISH film (and yes, I do think the first one had both of those elements), but it's trying to be different from the run-of-the-mill Cannon films of the period in that it's genuinely unique.<br /><br />The plot is simple (don't worry, there won't be spoilers): A group of college student pranksters change their ways when one of their family members is assaulted by a tough street gang. The students take to the streets in an effort to combat general street crime, being that they don't know who the gang responsible is. They eventually acquire some heavy artillery (machine guns and grenades) and prowl the night fully armed. However, these are not Schwarzenegger types; they're vulnerable, inexperienced novices who make sizable blunders nearly each time they set out to clean up the city (usually with their frat mascot dog in tow). They finally figure out who the gang is and go after them, but by then you won't be expecting a standard climax in which the good guys walk away unscathed.<br /><br />One thing about the film that struck me as strange yet effective is that the bulk of the first act offers no indication that we'll be seeing any action or violence later on as it's treated like a goofy frat comedy you'd see on USA's Up All Night (where I believe this was actually shown at one point). The comedy set-up actually lulled me into forgetting that the VHS cover showed a guy riding a motorcycle with a machine gun strapped to his back. Then, when the violence finally arrives, it's not fun or cute at all... it's shockingly disturbing. From that point on the film becomes a full blooded, uncompromising action yarn containing some startling gunfights and gore.<br /><br />The acting, while nothing special, is far more impassioned than I anticipated. James Van Patten, who plays the protagonist, gives his all and his performance is surprisingly good for this type of movie. The rest of the cast is equally invested, including the always dependable Ernest Borgnine as the hero's cop father. The cinematography is also above par and the action scenes are handled with a level of severity that I personally wasn't expecting.<br /><br />I can understand why some people thought this movie was worthless as much of it is extremely dated, but those facets struck me as nothing short of cool in and of themselves. Van Patten's character is studying animation and his patently early 80s style work that's on display in several scenes is a retro film lover's psychedelic wet dream. I'm sure most contemporary viewers would cite those very moments as low points in the movie, but I disagree. Also, Joe Walsh's soundtrack - which sounds like it could have only been recorded in '83 - seemed particularly fitting and enjoyable, regardless of how "old" it seems today.<br /><br />YOUNG WARRIORS is one of my favorite action films of the 80s and I highly urge anyone interested in the genre to take a look. Sadly, however, it's only been released on VHS as of this writing, and it isn't being shown on TV these days. A nice DVD presentation would make me moon-walk around my living room with such intensity that I'm sure my ankles would swell. In the meantime, I implore you all to go on Ebay or Amazon and cough up the ten bucks or whatever for the old big-box tape. It really is a remarkable staple of ambitious trash cinema.
|
positive
|
This old stinker makes the Flash Gordon movies look sophisticated. It's so terrible I love it, and I wish I could find a tape, but none of the catalogs I've checked list it. The rock band leader who calls himself Commander Cody must have loved it too, because he named his band after it.
|
negative
|
Caddyshack 2 has a dreadful reputation, due only to the fact that it is a sequel to a highly-held classic. People have criticised the film on a lot of grounds, but they all ultimately hark back to the fact that this is not Caddyshack.<br /><br />I would begin by saying that we should just take Caddyshack out of the equation and consider this film on its own merits, but I think that would be unfair. The movie does have a lot in common with its predecessor. The class-related themes of 'snobs versus slobs' and the desire to fit in to a class above your own are as prevalent here as they were in the first movie. The two things that are truly lacking here are Bill Murray and Rodney Dangerfield, who are replaced with Dan Ackroyd and Jackie Mason respectively.<br /><br />Now I am not about to try and argue that Ackroyd comes close to Murray in the movie, but Jackie Mason is an admirable successor to Dangerfield. He comes off as a cross between Dangerfield and Arnold Stang, but without biting too heavily on either. I wouldn't say that he is anywhere close to being as funny as Dangerfield is in Caddyshack, but there is a whole lot more point to his character and his dilemma in the film.<br /><br />Chevy Chase only pops up and handful of times in the movie, which is another common complaint. Maybe these particular naysayers didn't notice that he only popped up a few times in the first movie. For my money, his scenes here are a lot funnier, if somewhat over-directed.<br /><br />While I'm on the subject, it is really the over-direction of this movie that brings it down. It comes across as far more self-conscious in its attempts to get a laugh. Many of the jokes are laboured and there's far too much of the Gopher, who seems to have taken on a far more anthropomorphic personality and a voice, just in case we didn't grasp the idea that its meant to be funny.<br /><br />Characters are similarly hammered home, particularly the smarmy yuppy kids. Jackie Mason rarely misses a beat, and is consistently likable and very funny, but we didn't need the tango sequence at all! The director is clearly not of the same school of thought as Harold Ramis. Not to suggest that Caddyshack was subtle, but the jokes here are just a little overcooked, and most of them are unnecessarily embellished with a quirky music cue.<br /><br />All things considered, this is a fun, goofy movie with something to say about class and identity that very few movies at the time were saying. Don't be put off by the appallingly low rating on IMDb, check it out for yourself.
|
positive
|
My sisters and my cousin(female) forced me to see this chick movie. Its not the kind of movie I would prefer to see, but it really wasn't that bad. I wouldn't want to see this movie, but after watching it I couldn't say it was bad, just not my kind of film. It was very accurate in acting out what woman really talk about and do in certain situations. As a guy, I wasn't TOO amused by the jokes, but man the women sure were. They related to the movie and yeah it was funny to see themselves on the big screen. "OH EM GEE I DO THAT TO HAHA" I've never seen the original, nor would I care to. If you are a girl, this is a must see, but maybe girls would say this movie sucked, probably. I don't see a 13 year old going, "Wow I remember going threw that when I was 30."<br /><br />No man would have this in there collection, but I can't say it was horrible, so meh.
|
positive
|
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.<br /><br />I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.<br /><br />In a word: forgettable.
|
negative
|
When I saw this trailer on TV I was surprised. In May of 2008 I was at Six Flags in New Jersey and this was showing at a 4-D attraction (you know, the attraction that the seats move). I take it that the version I saw was a shortened version (15 min.) and also re-created to add the motion effects. It was a cute movie... but that was it. It was educational and told about the first mission but the ending of a CGI spacewalk seemed a bit...well...trite. I was not a big fan of the movie but i would recommend this movie for any parent wanting to inform their children in a fun way about the first moonwalk. I will say, the character actors were well selected and the characters themselves were cute. So all-in-all, I would say, if you want to bring the younger kids... go for it. But if you are wanting to take your older kids, take them to another movie... they will thank you.
|
negative
|
Would that more romantic comedies were as deftly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me catching my breath with excitement. Margaret Sullavan makes a marvellous saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the best in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most winning performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me giddy with joy. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, but this one he must surely consider a triumph. With some of the wittiest dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer.
|
positive
|
After reading tons of good reviews about this movie I decided to take it for a spin (I bought it on DVD, hence the "spin" pun...I'm a dork). The beginning was everything I hoped for, a perfect set-up (along with some quotes that I've heard on Various Wu-Tang albums) to what should have been a good movie. But the plot I heard was so great, was so predictable. Every time I saw a character (except for the Lizard) I guessed which Venom he was. Plus, the only cool character gets killed off in the middle of the movie. Ok, so the plot wasn't very good but at least there was some good kung-fu right? Wrong. The fights were very short and few and far between. Granted the different styles were all pretty cool but I wish the fights were longer. I kept hoping to see the Lizard run and do some crazy ish on the walls but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Centipede do some tight speedy ish but it never happened. I was hoping to see the Scorpion in the movie for more than 7 total minutes but it never happened. In short, not much happens. The fighting is all pretty routine. Don't be fooled just becuase this movie has a plot, it does not mean it's a good one.
|
positive
|
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
|
negative
|
I saw 'I Smell the Dead' -- sorry, 'I SELL the Dead' -- at a press screening. Glenn McQuaid, the film's writer-director-editor, is a laddish Irishman who introduced the screening by announcing that -- whilst it was in progress -- he would be 'going out for a pint'. I don't begrudge him a drink, but -- by telling us about it -- he seemed to feel he needed to certify his laddishness or his Irishness, or both. When the opening credits rolled, there were -- as usual at press screenings -- loud ovations for the names of every actor or crew member who'd got friends in the audience, and silence for those who hadn't. McQuaid returned for a witty Q&A afterwards.<br /><br />This horror movie doesn't take itself seriously, which is good because its humour is considerably stronger than its horror. Only one scene is even remotely scary, and most of the 'horror' is merely gross-out, but I laughed throughout much of the film.<br /><br />This movie appears to be set in Ireland circa 1850 (by which time grave-robbing was mostly defunct). The story is told in flashback: we get flashbacks within flashbacks, and the narrating character flashbacks material that he couldn't know about, because sometimes he wasn't present or (in one case) because the action is unfolding behind his back.<br /><br />The story begins with a prisoner being taken to the guillotine. Guillotines weren't used in 19th-century Ireland, but -- for once -- we actually see a plausible guillotine sequence. The prisoner struggles on his way to execution, the rope cleats are accurate, and the prisoner manages to look up to see the blade overhead. (And there's a payoff later to justify the historically inaccurate use of the guillotine itself.)<br /><br />The characters are ostensibly Irish, but one major character speaks in Cockney slang: using phrases like "a mug's game" and "take a butcher's" (for 'have a look'). For once, actors in 19th-century roles display 19th-century dental hygiene, yet nearly all the clothes and hairstyles (and the women's make-ups) are resolutely 21st-century. I'm not complaining in the case of Heather Bullock, who wears a very fetching black miniskirt cozzie that appears to be PVC. Phworr!<br /><br />The lead actors (except Ron Perlman) are excellent, but most of the supporting cast have no sense of the Victorian period. The worst offender is Joel Garland as the publican, whose characterisation is firmly rooted in the twenty-first century. Just when I thought that Garland's performance couldn't get any less Victorian, he used his fingers to make "ironic" air-quotes.<br /><br />The sets (especially Angus Scrimm's lab) are detailed and impressive, yet failed to convince me that people actually lived and worked in these places. Nearly every interior contains burning candles, but never once did I see what would have been there if these were actual Victorian homes or workplaces: leftover drippings from previous candles.<br /><br />One scene features an extra-terrestrial: I was annoyed that McQuaid plumped for a stereotypical "grey" Schwa alien, rather than something original.<br /><br />There are splendid montage sequences, but McQuaid opts for flashy effects -- split-screens, overhead shots -- that don't serve the story. I was impressed by a recurring blue-screen device superimposing the main characters' heads over other backgrounds. Less effective was a recurring 'Creepshow'-style motif of camera shots morphing actors' faces into drawings resembling panel art from 1950s EC horror comics. I'm a fan of EC Comics, but they don't belong in 19th-century Ireland. The money that McQuaid spent on flashy photo F/X -- showing off his editing skills without serving the story -- should've been spent on accurate costumes.<br /><br />BIG SPOILERS NOW. Ron Perlman gives an "Oirish" performance full of acting-school tics. Ostensibly playing a 19th-century Irish priest, he writes with his left hand. (In Victorian Ireland, left-handed children were punished for using "the devil's hand" and were forcibly retrained to become righties.) But Perlman's character turns out to have a reason for concealing his right hand. Elsewhere, a character is bitten by a zombie yet suffers no ill effects, so I knew there'd be a payoff later. Several scenes that would more logically take place at night are shot in daylight, apparently only because this was easier and less expensive. (Since McQuaid is a proficient director and editor, he could easily have shot "day for night" ... but using a process-photography effect to help tell the story seems to interest him much less than showing off his flashy editing techniques.)<br /><br />McQuaid seems to be giving homage to those great old Hammer horror flicks. But those Hammers were so great because the actors and production designers worked hard to convince us that we were actually witnessing events in 1888 Whitechapel, or wherever. 'I Sell the Dead' almost entirely fails to evoke the 19th century.<br /><br />Glenn McQuaid shows talent as a director, scripter and editor, yet in all three capacities here he makes odd choices ... then largely fails to justify those choices. But I enjoyed 'I Sell the Dead'. I'll rate it 7 out of 10, and I look forward to his next movie.
|
positive
|
I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.<br /><br />The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.<br /><br />But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.<br /><br />There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.<br /><br />Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.<br /><br />I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.
|
negative
|
It is a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney.
|
negative
|
According to the director this movie was popular in Asia. It is somewhat difficult to take these Mats Helge movies seriously since most of his films are shot on a very tight budget. Almost no USD at all. But it is fascinating to establish that Mats Helge eventually completes something which can be called an action movie. The Ninja Mission is - I think - the best one among all movies directed by him. Some special effects are quite enjoyable. This is not a "B" or "C" movie. It is a "Z" movie - but an enjoyable and fun "Z" movie!
|
positive
|
Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.<br /><br />Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).<br /><br />Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? <br /><br />And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! <br /><br />Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as "good," but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema.
|
negative
|
I had never heard of Dead Man's Bounty when I saw it at the DVD store a few weeks ago, and I thought I had stumbled upon an unrecognized gem, since it had Val Kilmer in it in a truly unique role. Sadly, it wasn't more than ten or fifteen minutes into the movie that I realized that this is a disaster of epic proportions. The first clue you will see of how genuinely awful this movie is comes near the beginning, when you have a bunch of dirtbags in an old saloon laughing like a bunch of hyenas in a scene that goes on about five times too long. It's unbelievable how bad it is. And sadly, it doesn't get any better.<br /><br />Val Kilmer is featured prominently on the movie's cover box, maybe to trick you into thinking that he has a role in the film, but unfortunately his bizarre role as a dead man is overlooked in favor of focusing on a bunch of half-wit crooks and the most inept conceptualization of a unique town sheriff that I've ever seen in a movie. He's played by Boguslaw Linda, who is unable to or uninterested in covering his Polish accent, immediately making it impossible that the movie is meant to take place in the American old west. <br /><br />Does Poland have this type of frontier past? I don't know. My knowledge of Polish history is not my strong point, but I can tell you this, The Sheriff, as he is known in the movie, is the worst representation of law enforcement that I can ever remember seeing in a movie. He is introduced in a truly ridiculous scene where he is wearing some kind of blindfold and a roomful of men take turns punching him in the face. Before they start hitting him, he explains that they can each hit him once, and then, after the first round, they will each hit him again, and if he can identify who is throwing the punches, they lose. What the hell is this crap? I am completely at a loss to explain why a scene like this would ever be put into any movie. <br /><br />Throughout the movie, the Sheriff continues to appear more and more beaten and bruised and drunk and battered, until ultimately he does nothing but show up occasionally, stumbling on screen and mumbling "not
without...the law
" You see, there is a lot of talk and preparation for a hanging, the details of which are as meaningless as the rest of the movie. <br /><br />It takes place, by the way, in a town that consists of nothing more than two ramshackle wooden buildings facing each other across a flattened bit of dirt that is more of a path than a road. My understanding is that it is a part of Poland that is supposed to look acceptably enough like the American southwest, where none of the characters, except maybe the dead guy, could possibly have come from.<br /><br />I have heard that Val Kilmer accepted the role because he was intrigued by his unique role, and also by director Uklanski's minimal use of dialogue in favor of a reliance on cleverly timed juxtaposition of images in unique visual montages. <br /><br />Yeah, whatever. <br /><br />Seems to me that Kilimer was unable to overcome what must have been the truly satisfying feeling that he must have gotten when he was offered the role. Personally, I would really feel that I had reached quite some level of success if someone approached me and offered me probably a few hundred thousand dollars to come and lay still for a while. I like to think that he didn't even read the script for this mess, because if he did I am at a total loss to understand why he accepted the role.<br /><br />At any rate, the movie opens with a man bringing in the corpse of a man, played by Kilmer, seeking the reward. Soon he finds himself embroiled in a ludicrous love story involving the town prostitute, the alcoholic Sheriff, and lots of mayhem involving a series of stupid, stupid characters. <br /><br />There is also a extensive and preposterous lack of understanding of American rituals. In one scene, a man cuts a cherry tomato in half and squishes the halves into Kilmer's eyes (for what reason, I can't imagine), and then later, a man makes a short speech over Kilmer's corpse, in which he explains that he was "one of the finest men we ever had," and then he proceeds to lop his head off with a shovel. What the HELL?? <br /><br />Not convinced yet? Here are some more reasons not to watch it. In one scene the Sheriff appears to be covered with ash, except for the perfectly clean areas around his eyes and what can only possibly be described as bright red lipstick. A man gets a head wound that drenches his head and body in blood. In a daze, he cauterizes it with gunpowder. Smart. Near the end, the Sheriff appears to have a broken arm. Sitting at the bar, he puts a rope around his neck and connects it to his injured arm, and uses his good arm to pull on the rope, lifting his shaking beer glass in his bad arm to his mouth, rather than using his good arm to drink. Also smart. <br /><br />Why doesn't he just use his good arm? I have no idea. That, like everything else in the movie, makes no sense whatsoever, like the title. Summer Love? Are you kidding me? Avoid this mess at all costs. <br /><br />In the meantime, here's something for the IMDb Goofs page <br /><br />Errors made by characters (possibly deliberate errors by the filmmakers) : This movie got made. HA!
|
negative
|
From a bare description of THE TOLL GATE's major plot elements, one might think it's a revisionist Western of the 60s or 70s. <br /><br />* Our hero is a robber, killer, and arsonist; <br /><br />* the love interest is a single mother whose shiftless husband abandoned her and their child; <br /><br />* twice our criminal hero is "unofficially" released by authorities in return for some good deed, and this is presented as a praiseworthy act;<br /><br />* the only acts which are presented as truly evil are the betrayal of one's family and the betrayal of a criminal associate;<br /><br />* the hero tries to go straight, but turns back to a life of crime after he can't get a job;<br /><br />* the hero is on the run from both a sheriff's posse and a criminal gang;<br /><br />* the hero's final redemption is accomplished by strangling a man with his bare hands and tossing his body over a cliff;<br /><br />* and the "good bad man" ends the film by sending the young mother and her child back to civilization and riding off alone into the Mexican desert, never (presumably) to pay for his life of crime.<br /><br />Just goes to show you that there is nothing new under the sun.<br /><br />Of course, THE TOLL GATE doesn't display quite the cynicism or moral nihilism of its successors: the hero's redemption is set up when he surrenders to the posse after reading a passage from the Bible. Can't quite imagine Clint Eastwood doing that.<br /><br />THE TOLL GATE an excellent movie by any standard, and Hart was a very fine actor, not given to the broad histrionics often used to convey emotion in the days before sound.<br /><br />9/10.
|
positive
|
The story of Macbeth was one of the most successful Shakespeare ever wrote. This may be due to some features that place it close to the slasher genre, murder, murder, kill, kill, gallons of blood, a tense sexual relation between the main characters etc. More than this, the original play is very appealing taking into consideration the length (it's only half the size of Hamlet) and the focus on Macbeth for whom we are constrained to care in spite of his bloody nature. The play would seem ideal to base a movie on. Not so lengthy it gives the directors the possibility to explore it's many levels, a good actor can play the role of his lifetime, the film has deep meaning in any historical period. Unfortunately this has not been the case with Macbeth. Polanski's version comes quite close but it insists too much on the medieval period. Welles' film is too personal, with an interesting twist towards totalitarianism, the 1990 or so TV version is too shallow. This 2006 movie is no exception. It is very far from a Shakespeare film, but it is interesting to see how the director understood the story and where he places it in contemporary life. No knights in shiny armor but gangsters in shiny cars. A lot of drugs and trippy music replace the dread of night in the original play. The idea of Macbeth is so simple that to take and implant it in modern day life doesn't need Shakespeare at all. The worst part in the film are the lines. Most of the poignant scenes of the play, such as the dagger scene are trimmed so much they seem pointless. Replacing the knocks in the door with doorbells and horses with cars seems funny. If they wanted to make a movie about power and its temptation they could have done it easily without Shakespeare. This Macbeth seems to be a looser with a brain injury not a valiant warrior, brave and ambitious that wants power so much he is prepared to to kill and who gets caught up in a net of fears and despair. The movie doesn't make clear what drives Lady Macbeth to madness, it doesn't give a reason why some of the characters should fear Macbeth and his "terror" (since there is no hereditary ascension to the throne, what with no throne and all) and it places Macbeth in an awkward position, since the leadership of a gang is as far from kingship as this whole movie is far from any Shakespeare. In conclusion, we have two superimposed ideas that never quite meet making this a film that's ultimately pointless.... Stand not upon the order of your going but go!
|
negative
|
Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.<br /><br />At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow "beautiful". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.<br /><br />I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left.
|
negative
|
One of the worst movies ever made. Let's start with the superficial: Joaquin Phoenix is, first of all, too fat to be a rookie fireman. The NYFD does not recruit Pillsbury dough boys. John Travolta has a bad dye job, and the strange gleam in his eye throughout the movie made me think that he was on some sort of extended Scientology bender. The plot hits on all the tropes and clichés of what the average Joe believes life as a firefighter is really like: they all get drunk, get into fights, have a hard time expressing their emotions, their wives all stay at home crying, they all have father issues, everyone has a Boston accent, et cetera. An execrable piece of schwarmerei that plays on our lingering cultural hero worship of firefighters after 9-11 -- which was, by the way, valid cultural hero worship. This film unfortunately presents no believable heroes to worship.
|
negative
|
Good: Engaging cinematic firefights, great presentation, vehicles are actually fun to drive, fairly appealing multiplayer, faithful to the movie, and the list goes on.<br /><br />Bad: Main missions are a bit short.<br /><br />This game defines what a "good" third person shooter(not necessarily a spy-game) is. Great firefights carry on the story and make you want to complete EVERY single mission through, and unlock all the genuine bonuses the game has to offer. The hype this game had, was lived up to, and I personally think you should buy it, and hook up with a couple of friends and play this one. Loads of fun. <br /><br />The sound in this game, is a rip-roaring achievement from a few previous bond games, and firing a weapon, really feels like you're firing a weapon. It ties in with the aspect that you are a deadly and ruthless spy.<br /><br />All in all, this game makes you excited and satisfied after you make it through, and some multiplayer that can compete with the standards of the crafty James Bond "Nightfire" game for gamecube.
|
positive
|
_Waterdance_ explores a wide variety of aspects of the life of the spinally injured artfully. From the petty torments of faulty fluorescent lights flashing overhead to sexuality, masculinity and depression, the experience of disability is laid open.<br /><br />The diversity of the central characters themselves underscores the complexity of the material examined - Joel, the writer, Raymond, the black man with a murky past, and Bloss, the racist biker. At first, these men are united by nothing other than the nature of their injuries, but retain their competitive spirit. Over time, shared experience, both good and bad, brings them together as friends to support one another.<br /><br />Most obvious of the transformations is that experienced by Joel, who initially distances himself from his fellow patients with sunglasses, headphones and curtains. As he comes to accept the changes that disablement has made to his life, Joel discards these props and begins to involve himself in the struggles of the men with whom he shares the ward.<br /><br />The dance referred to in the title is a reference to this daily struggle to keep one's head above water; to give up the dance is to reject life. _Waterdance_ is a moving and powerful film on many levels, and I do not hesitate to recommend it.
|
positive
|
The story was well plotted and interesting by itself. However, it is difficult for me to write the review of this film without spoiling you. To avoid that, I am not going to talking the story here.<br /><br />I regard this film as a good adaption of Sarah Water's book, as compared with the previous one "Tipping the velvet". I read the book first and then watched the DVD later. The film did retain most of spirits of the main characters in the book. Of course, due to the time limitation, the film in the last 30 min seemed to be in a rush to cover the part III of the book. Therefore, it couldn't illustrate well the scene when they all met in the the kitchen of Mr. Ibbs's place and those after that (even the book seemed to me to be a rush on that kitchen scene). Despite that, the film actually did a good job in representing the story. It really worth watching. It's still unclear when BBC-America can broadcast this film. That's pity.<br /><br />PS: noticed that the ages of Maud and Sue were set to be 20-21 instead of 17-18 in the book; the latter is more reasonable while the former is more close to the ages of actresses.
|
positive
|
I'll be honest. I got this movie so I could make fun of it. I mean, come on, "Hood of the Living Dead"? What other reaction could I have? The thing is, though, the movie (and its makers) decided that it wasn't going to be made fun of. Instead, it was going to try its best to be a good movie.<br /><br />And you know what? It came awfully close. A little less cheese in the incidental music, a little more professionalism in the photography, the acting, the incidentals (like the props--love the Best Buy bag)...well, it's not a classic of the zombie movie genre, but it's still a pretty neat little movie on its own. And the acting, writing and pacing are all surprisingly better than I would have expected. There's even some decent humor, as two of our leads debate how to decide if a dead zombie is really dead.<br /><br />If you can overlook the low budget (which leaves its fingerprints in everything, alas) and the almost constant profanity, this can be a pretty fun time at the movies. No, it ain't great. Yes, it could have been better. But the makers, the actors, the crew, they all tried to make a good film (instead of a camp classic) and that counts for a lot. The line of campy zombie films is a mile long, and thank you, guys, for not adding to it.<br /><br />Kudos to the Quiroz brothers. I'd love to see what they do next. And hey, somebody, give them a budget!
|
positive
|
I remember hearing about this movie and how it played at nearly every drive-in theatre here in Toronto. It's about a group of girls that are not accepted by the other sororities at their college, so they start up their own, and of course call it H.O.T.S. It's a fun movie, that is just bursting with drive-in nostalgia! Lots of fully endowed t-shirts, vans, fighting, and a football game showdown like no other! It's been compared to "Animal House", which is a good movie in it's own right, but to me nothing compares to H.O.T.S. It has it's own brand of fun & character. If you are looking for a classic T n'A movie, look no further because the H.O.T.S. girls are to the rescue, boom-boom shorts & all!
|
positive
|
While this is a faithful adaptation, it is much less exciting than Greene's novel. Also, it's a bit ridiculous when people say things to Boyer like, "You're Spanish, aren't you?"<br /><br />Still, the movie's not at all bad, just slow-moving.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Really, I liked it. The premise was good, the story fit where both respective series left off, and here's my favorite part. Mary and Valerie aren't bitter! They aren't like others who become synonymous with a certain series and then refuse to talk about it, or do possible reunions (A prime example is Susan Dey, "The Partridge Family"). In fact, Valerie was saying that she'd be thrilled to do another movie, and then Mary said the same thing later, so I would be on the look for another...but if that doesn't quite work out, then they can re-run this one.
|
positive
|
What exactly do people expect when they watch an Al Adamson film? Are they expecting classic cinema that is wonderful beyond belief and will leave them with lasting memories? You'd think so by some of the reviews. Al Adamson's films are trashy and sleazy and cheesy, not much more, so if you go into them knowing that already it helps, and they aren't necessarily to be taken at face value, especially when they have so much unintentional entertainment value. First off, this starts by ripping off the end theme music from Outer Limits, so you know things are looking promising. This is the story of some wacko cult that lives in the hills and while trying to raise a dead body, the leader suffers a heart attack and ends up in the hospital. Of course Nurse Sherri tends to his needs and all, and when an operation is needed she just happens to be hanging out in the operating room when the guy passes on so his spirit invades her. And Nurse Sherri begins to change. No longer the nice nurse, she develops a taste for blood and sharp objects. There's a couple little side stories going on like folks trying to burn the body of the dead cult leader and a blinded football star that has become the love object of one of Sherri's co-workers who also just happens to dabble in voodoo. This is not bad if you're a cult film fan, but it may be bad if you're a "Spiderman" fan because you won't like it. At times this actually lurches towards "respectability" (for Adamson, anyway) but then it "unredeems: itself with some ridiculous event. If you enjoy Adamson's films and similar trash you may well like this, for anyone else who may be looking for a lost treasure, keep digging. 7 out of 10.
|
positive
|
This film is about two horse traders who agree to escort a small group of Mormons across the desert. Along the way, they encounter a murderous family of thugs who menace the peaceful folks and put their pilgrimage in jeopardy.<br /><br />WAGON MASTER is what I would term a "little" John Ford film, as it obviously did not have the budget or scope of some of his other Westerns. In particular, this film lacks the big-name stars like John Wayne but allows some of the usual supporting characters to take center stage. Long-time Ford stock character actors Ben Johnson, Harry Carey, Jr. and Ward Bond have been elevated to starring roles and perhaps the one who came of as "the" lead was probably Johnson--though the other two got nearly as much screen time and focus. This is not a bad thing, as the film worked just fine without the big star--and is well worth seeing.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say I loved the movie. It was very good but certainly not perfect. In particular, as far as the music goes, you'll probably either love it or hate it. I found the Sons of the Pioneers' music a bit schmaltzy at times. It did evoke a nice mood, but seemed to occasionally dominate the scenes. I think a little would have worked much better. Plus, with their incessant singing in the background, I kept expecting Roy Rogers to pop out at any moment. Another minor problem is that the plot was amazingly simple and the ending was pretty much a foregone conclusion.<br /><br />However, and I am glad to say there is a 'however', despite this being rather formulaic and sentimental, the film still worked well. This was primarily due to John Ford's nice, as usual, direction as well as Ben Johnson's exceptional performance. He was able to provide an excellent anchor for the film. Another plus for me is that I saw this in the same week as BRIGHAM YOUNG, another film about the Mormon migration. While BRIGHAM YOUNG was a bit silly and overly "saintly" in its portrayals, here the Mormons were less "perfect" and more like real people--with foibles and personalities. Oh, and speaking of BRIGHAM YOUNG, it seems as if Jane Darwell was the 'go to' girl for Mormon-themed films during this era, as she was a major supporting character in both films. Considering that she died in BRIGHAM YOUNG and it was set about 20 years before WAGON MASTER, this is some stunt!<br /><br />Also, if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the famous Jim Thorpe, he's in a tiny role where he plays the impassive Indian dancing next to Jane Darwell around the camp fire.
|
positive
|
This movie is about Tyrannus, a gladiator who is brought back from the dead to summon Tyrannus, a gladiator who must be brought back from the dead. Tyrannus, we learn after about an hour, is also called Demonicus. This adds much needed depth to the screenplay and calls into question our assumptions about identity, psychology and ourselves. <br /><br />The spirit of Tyrannus accomplishes his little to-do list (killing some people and saying repetitive phrases in Latin) by possessing the body of a college guy. He uses a magic mind-control helmet to do this, which the college boy willingly puts on his head, and then at several points in the movie, takes off and puts back on.<br /><br />Maria performs oral sex on a poor man's Sean Willian Scott, and Tyrannus wears the Rollerball glove. Tyrannus has his own green backlighting for no reason, and has apparently been sitting next to CG fire in an ancient concrete tunnel for centuries like this. Utter misfortune.<br /><br />This movie is empty and will hurt you. See it.
|
negative
|
This is one of the best films ever made. It is a realistic depiction of rural ranching life which was a big part of American History. The setting is 1906 Wyoming where life had not changed much since the previous century. The film keeps your interest without the added Hollywood myths. The whole family can see this movie and be intrigued about how life was like in America when it was mostly a rural nation. With this film, you will escape the present and witness the daily life of 100 years ago. In a beautiful, scenic environment you will see the hard physical work that was required to survive, as well as the constant worries and concerns of the elements and the market pressures that will make a difference between success or failure. See this movie and experience life as it was for most of our nation's history. This film is worth your time to see. My only question is - why aren't there more films like this one?
|
positive
|
How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.<br /><br />This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.<br /><br />This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell. <br /><br />This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.<br /><br />This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.
|
negative
|
I saw this film in a London cinema in 1975 and have not seen it since. I found it hilarious. I loved it's originality. It's rare that someone MAKES a movie like this - and it's sad too.<br /><br />What I mean is, I once read a book called "The Black Hotel" - and as a film-fan, I always "picture" books as films. Kinda "adapt" them, you know? But as I read it, I thought, well, this would make a great movie - but of course it would have to be "adapted" - to the point where it would bear little relationship to the book.<br /><br />But then I thought, well WHY? Sure, it could never be shown on Sunday afternoon TV, but provided it were shown in cinemas to ADULTS, who knew what it contained, where's the HARM? Dammit, my civil liberties were being crushed here. A director SHOULD be able to make a literal film adaptation of "The Black Hotel".<br /><br />In an ideal World, censorship of films for adults should not EXIST. But sadly, whilst I accept that with INTELLIGENT adults, such freedom might be harmless, there would always be those who would lack the rationality to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and who might be spurred on to commit foul deeds.<br /><br />However, it's hard to see how "La Bete" falls into that category.<br /><br />On it's appearance in England, the British censor dismissed it out of hand. Despite the '69 relaxation on nudity, given the film's theoretical theme of bestiality, had the censor passed ANY of it, he'd have been looking for a new job on Monday.<br /><br />BUT... in those days, there was an alternative. The G.L.C. This was a local town council with a department who had the power to pass a film just for London, where it was deemed audiences were more "sopisticated" than those who lived out in the sticks.<br /><br />The film was duly submitted and PASSED. However, it later emerged that the "board" consisted of just four people - three who voted, plus a "chairman". And on the day, one of the voters was off sick. Thus the remaining two voters and the chairman sat down to view "La Bete".<br /><br />One of said voters thought, like me, that the film was hilarious and hardly likely to encourage foul deeds by ANYONE. The other lacked imagination and simply thought the piece disgusting. And the chairman didn't understand it, so decided to err on the side of FREEDOM.<br /><br />When the missing voter finally saw the film, they too thought it disgusting, but it was TOO LATE! The film had received its "X-London" certificate and opened to mixed reaction. The G.L.C. film censorship board was disbanded soon after! Thus "La Bete" only opened in London by what could best be termed a FLUKE! But I'm glad it was. It's GREAT! If you haven't seen it, DO so. It's a FANTASY, and as such, it's far less disturbing than most things you see on the news these days...
|
positive
|
This is an "odysessy through time" via computer animation, supposedly th work of over 300 artists. Made in the late '80s and released in 1990, this was cutting edge stuff for the day. I thought it was good and quite interesting in spots.<br /><br />Most of the short scenes made no sense, just forms evolving into other forms, but that was fun to watch. This is all about visuals, not really about any kind of a story. There were some strange sequences in which odd-looking men- creatures would dance around with birds overheard. All of it is computer animated which was new back then. Even the term "computer animated" was not well-known.<br /><br />It's simply a chance to show off this new technology in short bits of cartoon-like happenings with beautiful colors and imaginative scenes. No words, just pictures with electronic music. Stoners must have really loved this.<br /><br />It's a nice, intriguing 40 minutes of "eye candy" and "head candy." By today's CG effects this may have lost impact, but I think you'd still be entertained by this.
|
positive
|
This is probably one of the worst "wanna be a low budget hit films" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the "super fast" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off.
|
negative
|
This movie is just great... It starts out real slow and boring but as the movie progresses.....well the fun keeps on coming. The power of the movie is perhaps in it's subtle references to a lot (and I mean a lot) of other movies. For me the best part was perhaps the Bruce Lee/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scene. How the two actors switches from French to Chinese or whatever Asian language it was, it was awesome. Then the jokes with the names, they are hilarious but perhaps you won't understand all of them when your an American (no offense). Overall a great movie
|
positive
|
*****Classic ****Excellent ***Good **Fair *Tragic<br /><br />Review:<br /><br />Oldboy is not for everyone. It's pervasive violence, its live octopus eating and it's unimaginary story.<br /><br />The film focuses around a man who's been kidnapped and is imprisoned for 15 years, Oh Dae-Su is released, only to find that he must find his captor in 5 days. Now the story though may seem gripping to start with but once watching this bloated and un-original blood fest it develops into a mash of bitter blood and a forceful film.<br /><br />It's directing is on par of average and by no means the standards of what a South Korean thriller should be. Oldboys acting scenes are paralleled with dull humour and a poorly writtern script.<br /><br />Oldboy is occasionlly presented with thin straw performances that one could only feel shameful about.<br /><br />Verdict:<br /><br />Not for everyone but it's scope and vision isn't clear enough to see further than the grey abyss of fog.<br /><br />*Tragic
|
negative
|
This is one of the worst movies i have seen to date, the best part was Christian J. Meoli "Leonard" attempting to act jumping up and down outside the bar, kind-of like i wanted to do on the DVD, to spare the rest of humanity the agony of watching this shitty film. It has a great cast so you keep watching waiting for it to get good, i mean with Sean Astin "Andrew" (played his part perfectly, did a great job, too bad it was in this film), Kyra Sedgwick "Bevan", Ron Livingston "Chad", Renée Zellweger "Poet" (they put her name on the cover she has a total of 1 line and less then 4 seconds in the whole movie...<br /><br />If the cast had any dignity, they would go out and buy all the copies of this film and burn them along with Writer / Director George Hickenlooper and Writer John Enbom
|
negative
|
Every motion picture Bette Davis stars in is worth experiencing. Before Davis co-stars with Leslie Howard in "Of Human Bondage," she'd been in over a score of movies. Legend has it that Davis was 'robbed' of a 1935 Oscar for her performance as a cockney-speaking waitress, unwed mother & manipulative boyfriend-user, Mildred Rogers. The story goes that the AFI consoled Davis by awarding her 1st Oscar for playing Joyce Heath in "Dangerous." I imagine Davis' fans of "Of Human Bondage" who agree with the Oscar-robbing legend are going to have at my critique's contrast of the 1934 film for which the AFI didn't award her performance & the 1936 film "Dangerous," performance for which she received her 1st Oscar in 1937.<br /><br />I've tried to view all of Bette Davis' motion pictures, TV interviews, videos, advertisements for WWII & TV performances in popular series. In hindsight, it is easy to recognize why this film, "Of Human Bondage," gave Davis the opportunity to be nominated for her performance. She was only 25yo when the film was completed & just about to reach Hollywood's red carpet. The public began to notice Bette Davis as a star because of her performance in "Of Human Bondage." That is what makes it her legendary performance. But, RKO saw her greatness in "The Man Who Played God," & borrowed her from Warners to play Rogers.<br /><br />I'm going to go with the AFI, in hindsight, some 41 years after their astute decision to award Davis her 1st Best Actress Oscar for "Dangerous," 2 years later. By doing so, the AFI may have been instrumental in bringing out the very best in one of Hollywood's most talented 20th century actors. Because, from "Of Human Bondage," onward, Davis knew for certain that she had to reach deep inside of herself to find the performances that earned her the golden statue. Doubtless, she deserved more than 2 Oscars; perhaps as many as 6.<br /><br />"Dangerous" provides an exemplary contrast in Davis' depth of acting characterization. For, it's in "Dangerous" (1936) that she becomes the greatest actor of the 20th century. Davis is so good as Joyce Heath, she's dead-center on the red carpet. Whereas in "Of Human Bondage," Davis is right off the edge, still on the sidewalk & ready to take off on the rest of her 60 year acting career.<br /><br />Perhaps by not awarding her that legendary Oscar in 1935, instead of a star being born, an actor was given incentive to reach beyond stardom into her soul for the gifted actor's greatest work.<br /><br />It is well known that her contemporary peer adversary was Joan Crawford; a star whose performances still don't measure up to Davis'. Even Anna Nicole Smith was a 'star'. Howard Stern is a radio host 'star', too. Lots of people on stage & the silver screen are stars. Few became great actors. The key difference between them is something that Bette Davis could sense: the difference between the desire to do great acting or to become star-struck.<br /><br />Try comparing these two movies as I have, viewing one right after the other. Maybe you'll recognize what the AFI & I did. Davis was on the verge of becoming one of the greatest actors of the 20th century at 25yo & achieved her goal by the time she was 27. She spent her next 50 plus years setting the bar so high that it has not been reached . . . yet.<br /><br />Had the AFI sent her the message that she'd arrived in "Of Human Bondage," Davis' life history as a great actor may have been led into star-struck-dom, instead.
|
positive
|
It took me a while to find this movie since they don't have it yet on DVD (and my VCR is not worth hooking up again). I guess all the referencing to drug use is too much for some folks. But I found a decent bootleg on Ebay and I must say that anyone who takes this movie too seriously is just retarded. It is a slap stick spoof in the vein of "Airplane." I must say that when I watched it on Showtime or Spotlight growing up in the 80s, I enjoyed the humor a whole lot more then, than I do now. But it's definitely worth watching just to see what they(i.e., movie makers) were able to get away with before the "Just Say No" hypocrites unleashed their propaganda. sing..."We are all on drugs" hahaha It's a silly film and worth the $10 I paid off of Ebay to get it on DVD just don't even think about comparing it to the original - that's just plain stupid. What are you high?
|
positive
|
I'm not sure whether i like this film or not. I think it is creepy and completely weird.Crispin Glover as always gave a great performance as Layne. I think his performance was really good and one of his best, but i don't like the character at all. Keanu Reeves performance was really good, and i truly felt for his character. Over all i think the whole cast gave great performances as felt like the characters were real. I disliked some, but genuinely felt sorry for others (Keanu Reeves). I would like to know if that was the original ending that the film was supposed to have as it didn't end how i expected it to. I was disappointed in the ending and i don't feel that it did the rest of the film justice. If you are into creepy, weird and really well different movies, go for this one. If you like things that are normal, please stay away.
|
positive
|
A never ending frenzy of clever visual ironies does not necessarily create an engaging film. The "Blonde Wig" half of the movie never took off perhaps due to too much self-indulgence by its makers.<br /><br /> The Wong Faye half (featuring a very playful, if Karen Carpenter looking, Faye Wong) holds much more appeal. All the ingredients are there, however, the girl-meets-boy story element takes a back seat to artsy cleverness. Character development is uneven. Emotion is missing.<br /><br /> For music lovers, Wong Faye's "Mung Jung Yun" (Cantonese version of the Cranberry's smash hit "Dreams") is used effectively in Chungking Express. Faye Wong also recorded a Mandarin language version called "Zhen Tuo." Both are on CD, although only "Mung Jung Yun" is found on the official movie soundtrack CD.
|
negative
|
The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.<br /><br />On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all.
|
negative
|
After the SuperFriends and Scooby Doo left the Saturday morning airwaves in the fall of 1986, I pretty much stopped watching Saturday morning cartoons at that point since those were the only two that kept me tuning in. And since neither the Real Ghostbusters nor the Flintstone Kids seemed very promising to me, I "retired" and started sleeping in on Saturday mornings. I only returned to Saturday morning TV in 1988 for that one year only for one and only one animated show. <br /><br />A new animated show of Superman was something I was not going to pass up. I was 17 and in high school at the time, but so what! I loved this show. From what I can recall, this series was a gift to fans I suppose in celebration of Superman's 50th birthday that particular year. It had the theme music and the music style reminiscent of John Williams movie score from the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve Superman movies. I honestly felt that the animation style Ruby Spears did was reminiscent of the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians series by Hanna Barbera a few years before. Sadly, Danny Dark was not back as Superman, but I felt Beau Weaver did a very impressive job as the voice of Superman and his Clark Kent was nerdy like the Chris Reeve version. After hearing him as Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic on the 90's Fantastic Four, I could still see this version of Superman in my mind. Ginny McSwain as Lois Lane. LOL! What a rhyme. She was a voice director for Hanna Barbera and Ruby Spears and I guess she took it upon herself to do Lois. Memories of the SuperFriends lingered in this series when it came to the voice over cast. Jimmy Olsen is Mark Taylor, who on the SuperFriends was formerly Firestorm. Perry White is none other than former Batman TV writer Stanley Ralph Ross, who on SuperFriends was Gorilla Grodd and Brainiac in the Super Powers shows. And Lex Luthor, now a wise cracking billionaire tycoon is none other than SuperFriends voice alum, Michael Bell, whom I know best as Zan and the Riddler as well as many other characters on many other series. <br /><br />I felt this series was a combination of the movie Superman along with the post crisis John Byrne re envision of Superman, with Lex Luthor as a billionaire tycoon, Jonathan and Martha Kent being alive to see Clark as Superman. The Bruce Timm series and Lois and Clark would also do this. Unfortunately, we never saw Brainiac, Bizarro, Toyman, Metallo, or Darkseid. Other than Luthor, we saw only the Prankster and we did see General Zod. I especially enjoyed that one episode with Wonder Woman, who was voiced over by BJ Ward who played her on the Super Powers Team as well. <br /><br />The episodes were smashing and I also enjoyed Clark's growing and development stories from infancy to childhood to adolescence to an adult moving to Metropolis in the short little segment, Superman's Family Album. <br /><br />The only two things I didn't like. It only lasted one season. And after Wonder Woman's guest spot, I was hoping Batman would turn up voiced over by Adam West (Still thinking about the Super Powers Team episodes I guess). I also hoped for it because on the Prankster episode, the Metropolis baseball team was pitted against the Gotham Goliaths. <br /><br />Every popular Super Hero has one cartoon series that is ultra rare. For SpiderMan, I feel it's the 1981 solo series that aired the same time as Amazing Friends. For the Incredible Hulk, it's the 1982 cartoon. For the Fantastic Four, it's the 1978 series with HERBIE the Robot. For Batman, it's the New Adventures of Batman 1977 by Filmation featuring BatMite. But for Superman, the rarest series is this one. <br /><br />Superman books and documentaries never cover or mention it. This is another series that WB should consider for DVD release. All in all, this 1988 version of Superman is well....Super!!
|
positive
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.