review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
A town in Japan is being taken over by a horribly brutal abstract shape: the spiral. It's becoming a theme in everything from animals to clouds to people and twisting them, mentally and literally. This film shows it happening to several groups of people. Some demonic possession is implied, but nothing is entirely sure except that the best bet is to get the heck out of dodge. The film progresses really well from normal life to abnormal phenomena (giant snails and crazy people) to the truly supernatural (walking dead).<br /><br />As a jaded American horror movie fan, this was just what I needed. Maybe it was just the novelty of a different culture's film, but it seemed to have a very original progression, set of characters, and the premise was definitely new. The Japanese may think "horror shapes" (uzumaki means "spiral," I'm told) are old by now, but it was nice for me because I'm used to monster/alien/virus/disaster/undead films. In an American movie, you know who's going to die (the annoying/nasty/lascivious/racist characters) and who will live (the children/heroine/dogs/cats/nice guy). That's not true in Japanese horror. It was not predictable how they would fight the evil or how it would end up. Also, it had this really new (but probably typically Japanese) color leached Pacific Northwest style cloudy day thing going, which was a fresh visual effect for me. The horrific moments were seriously creepy, relying on a little gore but mainly just impossibly overdone facial expressions (think The Ring) and body manipulations. This should be one of the greats, up there with once-original ideas like the first Nightmare on Elm Street or Night of the Living Dead.
|
positive
|
A Cryptozoologist captures a mythical chupacabra on a Caribbean island.To get it back to civilization he bribes his way onto the cargo bay of a large luxury cruise ship with funny and I think the script intended disastrous results.<br /><br />Lets start with the one thing I really did not like about this movie.... The monster really just looked like a guy in a rubber suit.The CGI scenes looked like a different movie. OK thats off my chest now onto all the enjoyable bits about this B movie.<br /><br />The best thing was John Rhys-Davies(his daughter the eye candy a close second.)John was intermittently funny and suave and no matter what the writers made him say, he said it well.Good job given what he had to work with.The Cyptozoologist was over the top and fun to watch too,he had some funny bits.The marines all were OK and make good cannon fodder for the monster as did some of the crew and guests.There are a few pretty funny lines in this movie,and a pretty amusing sub plot involving a thief.<br /><br />The special effects are generally med to low and I swear they reused the same blood spray on the wall scene in about four different parts of the movie. I did like the gore of the legless man.Really since this movie was not scary at all I feel a bit more gore would have gone along way in improving the watch ability of this movie.<br /><br />All in all if you like B monsters this one is worth a visit.
|
negative
|
Best animated movie ever made. This film explores not only the vast world of modern animation with absolutely boggling effects, but the branches of the human mind, soul, and philosophy. The story features a family of cats, where in the big sister dies, the younger brother sees this and rescues her body, but when she awakens she is left without a soul. So, the two sibling cats embark on a journey to find it. I have related this journey to many things. The history of the world, the bible, the cycle of life, and every time I watch it I discover more and more hidden themes and metaphors. If you aren't so into the physiological aspect of it then, you will still adore it. The animation is superb, and the creative scenes will have you attached to the screen. For example, the ocean freezing in time, god eating soup out of the earth, a strange and slightly SNM retelling of Hansel and Gretel. To conclude, Cat Soup is an absolute treat for anyone.<br /><br />PS- Not for kids, gratuitous violence included.
|
positive
|
Yakitate! Ja-pan (translated as Fresh Baked! Japanese Bread) is the story of a young man named Azuma Kazuma and his journey to make the perfect Japanese Bread or Ja-pan, for Japan, and for the Japanese, that will be recognized the the whole world.<br /><br />Of course, that's just on the outside. In reality, Yakitate! Ja-pan isn't really about the bread, but the reaction that come after eating the bread, and the pun that comes with the reaction. The series is lovable because of these puns. From popular anime titles like Naruto, Detective Conan, and Dragon Ball to blockbuster movies like The Matrix and Lord of the Rings. It's all there.<br /><br />So what makes this title different from other titles of the same genre like Cooking Master Boy or Mr. Ajikko? Well, unlike the others who use cooking for world domination, Yakitate! Ja-pan is purely comedy. Sure, there are times that the story turns to drama, or even murder, but the comedic atmosphere makes you laugh at them. You'll be laughing at their own view of heaven. Just watch it.<br /><br />Just remember that this is also fiction, although some of the bread made here are based on real bread, eating the home made Japan #2 won't turn you to a Super Saiyan or turn your body to rubber.
|
positive
|
Movies seem to fall into two categories: films that reinforce existing societal values and beliefs, and those that challenge them. This film is a 180-degree shift from the idealistic rhetoric portrayed in offerings like "The Longest Day" and "The Green Berets" which seem more like Disney fantasies by comparison. The "Apocalypse Now!" project, the production and resulting film, is "Heart of Darkness" updated into a psychological horror story of the late 20th century post-modernist variety. The cast and crew who worked on it probably could relate to the terrifying places the human mind can achieve. This is the plight of Joseph Conrad's original character Kurtz who came into literary being in 1901 and subsequently referenced in TS Eliot's "The Hollow Men" (Mistah Kurtz, he dead) of 1925. Although neither a straight telling of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" (1901) nor a first-hand account of the Vietnam experience, "Apocalypse Now!" stands as a masterpiece which pushed on the envelope of cinematic potential. "Apocalypse" is not just about the "horrors" of war per se, like "Platoon" and "The Deer Hunter", but the darker sensibilities of human nature as revealed through the raw and demeaning confrontations of violent conflict on a mass scale. Apocalypse Now! is not so much seen as experienced.<br /><br />The bulk of the movie is the journey of a trained secret assassin, Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen in a tour-de-force performance), aboard a US military boat traversing an unnamed river into the heart of Vietnam and Cambodia where few westerners would ever tread. His mission is to terminate Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a career army Special Forces Division officer who was the darling of the US Military until he went AWOL and renegade in the deep uncharted jungles between Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The official classified report is that the colonel has gone insane but as events play out, something else has happened to him that is far more terrifying than simply insanity. Sheen's mission is to terminate the colonel with the American public none the wiser.<br /><br />The movie is rather episodic. The journey along the river is made up of several vignettes as Sheen and his crew meet different self-contained "aspects" of the war at the ground level. American audiences of the 1970's had probably never seen this kind of film-making before, with the possible exception of "The Deer Hunter" which was released in the previous year. The first, and one of the most notable, is an helicopter battalion led by Col Kilgore (Robert Duvall in an Oscar-nominated performance) who is a cross between General Robert E Lee and Richard Wagner. He loves to play "Ride of the Valkyries" from Wagner's "The Ring" when he bombards helpless villages. His line "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning" is one of those oft-quoted lines from the annals of cinema. Other encounters include an amphitheater where enlisted privates will be entertained by the likes of Hugh Heffner and Playboy bunnies.<br /><br />Despite all the production catastrophes that impeded getting this footage into the can, the remarkable aspect of this film is its pacing. The original release (not the later Redux version) does a fine of job of building until the viewer is emotionally prepared to deal with the climactic confrontation between Willard and Kurtz. The strange discourse between Willard and Kurtz is worth the price of admission alone. And some of the shots of both Sheen and Brando in certain places are some of the starkest and terrifying images ever produced on film. Not even the likes of Clive Barker, Wes Craven or David Cronenberg have anything on Coppola in terms of horrific imagery. Brando's Kurtz in one scene in particular is so utterly terrifying it makes most other horror movies seem tame by comparison, which comes from the recognition that the horror is not from without but from within.<br /><br />Without giving too much away, Coppola's solution to the climactic moment stands as one of the most innovative of cinematic revelations. According to the documentary "Hearts of Darkness", Coppola feared that the inevitable final scene would lapse into melodrama, and the atmosphere of the movie's darker hues would be compromised. He wasn't sure how he could make it work until his wife encouraged the director to witness the ceremonial sacrifice of an ox as practiced by the native people with whom Coppola was using as extras in the scenes with Kurtz at "his" village. After the viewing, Coppola had his ending, and it is one of the most simultaneously disturbing and beautiful sequences in the history of American film-making. Love it or hate it, no western viewer will be the same after seeing this scene.<br /><br />This film is not for all tastes just as Conrad's original novel is not the kind of book that will be read on airplanes. It's not just the violence and the pointlessness of violence that are difficult for most American viewers to absorb. It's the naked unveiling of aspects of the human condition that seem so removed from suburban American life that make this film difficult for the average movie-goer to handle, which is as it should be. Coppola did not make a family picture. However, if the viewer can understand its larger point, there is a lot to be gotten out of Apocalypse Now!. If you're looking for a film experience to reaffirm pre-existing attitudes about American sensibility and heroism, better stick with John Wayne. But if you're willing to be taken into places you've never been, even beyond "the evils of war" rhetoric, "Apocalypse Now" will take you into a world you thought you'd never visited before, and the disturbing part of it is that you may recognize it.
|
positive
|
Well, What can I say, other than these people are Super in every way. I quite like Sharon Mcreedy, I enjoy this pure Nostalgic Series And I have the boxed set of 9 discs 30 episodes, I did not realise that they had made so many, I also think that it is a great shame, that they have not made any more. I wish that I got given these powers, Imagine me, being knocked off my cycle, somewhere and being knocked out cold, then waking up in a special hospital. Later on, I discover that my body has been enhanced. Just like Richard Barrat. These stories are 50 Minutes of pure action and suspense all the way, You cannot fight these 3 people, as they would defeat you in all forms of weaponry. The music is well written, and to me, puts a wonderful picture of 3 super beings in my mind, The sort of powers that the champions have are the same as our domestic dog or cats, Improved sight, Improved hearing and touch. and the strength of 10 men for Richard and Craig and the strength of 3 women for Sharon. Who I thought was beautiful and intelligent. When I was a boy, I had a huge crush on her!!!! Now I can see why, on my DVD set. The box is very nice and it comes with a free booklet all about the series. I also thought that Trymane was a good boss, firm but he got things done!
|
positive
|
More exciting than the Wesley Snipes film, and with better characters, too. The last vampire hunter must save Los Angeles from a coven of vampires out to conquer the city, aided by a tabloid journalist. Lost of fun... and the names of the characters are great!
|
positive
|
What we have here is a compelling piece of low budget horror with a relatively original premise, a cast that is filled with familiar faces AND one of the most convincing filming locations in the history of horror films. So...could anyone please tell me why this movie is so utterly underrated??? "Prison" is the Finnish director Harlin's American debut, which still counts as his best effort even though he went on making blockbuster hits like "Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger" and "Deep Blue Sea". The story entirely takes place in an ancient and ramshackle Wyoming prison, re-opened for the cause of over-population in other, more modern state penitentiaries. Inside the former execution dungeons, the restless spirit of the electric chair's last victim still dwells around. The now promoted warden Eaton Sharpe (Lane Smith) was there already 40 years ago, when this innocent man was put to death, and the spirit still remembers his vile role in the unfair trial. It seems that the time for vengeance has finally arrived. Viggo Mortensen plays the good car thief who has to prevent an even larger body count and Chelsea Field is the humane social worker who slowly unravels the secrets from the past.<br /><br />"Prison" contains over half a dozen memorable gore sequences but it's the unbearably tense atmosphere that'll stick to you for certain! Unlike any other horror picture from that decade, "Prison" features an amazing sense of realism! By this, I refer to the authentic scenery and the mood inside the prison walls, of course, and not towards the supernatural murders that are being committed... even though these are genuinely unsettling as well. The film's best parts are images of realistic and tough prison-drama sequences combined with visual mayhem and shocking horror. The absolute best terror-moment (providing me with nightmares ever since I saw it at rather young age) focuses on a grizzly death-struggle involving barbed wire. Haunting!! The screenplay only suffers one flaw, but that's a common one...almost inevitable, I guess: clichés! The story introduces nearly every possible stereotype there is in a prison surrounding. We've got the ugly, fat pervert with his 'cute' boy-toy, the cowardly and racist guard avoids confrontation at all costs and naturally the old 'n wise black con who serves a lifetime (did I hear anybody yell the name Morgan Freeman?) Don't stare yourself blind on these clichés is my advise, as there are so many other elements to admire. The photography is dark and moist, the mystery is upheld long and successfully and the supportive inmate-roles of class B-actors are excellent (the fans will recognize Tom Everett, Tom 'Tiny' Lister and even immortal horror icon Kane Hodder). Forget about Wes Craven's god-awful attempt "Shocker" or the downright pathetic cheese-flick "the Chair". This is the only prison chiller worth tracking down! Especially considering Viggo Mortensen peaking popularity nowadays (I heard he starred in a successful franchise involving elves, Hobbits and other fairy creatures...) this true 80's horror gem oughts to get an urgent DVD-release!
|
positive
|
If at all possible, try to view all five of the Universal "Mummy" films in order, not so much for the continuity between films, but for the very evident lack thereof. Of course it goes without saying that the original Boris Karloff classic "The Mummy" really shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the so called "sequels", all of which come off as campy or cultish. <br /><br />This time around, it's revealed that the mummified remains of Princess Ananka have made their way to the United States. And once again, as your eyes deceive you, Kharis the Mummy didn't really die for the second time in "The Mummy's Tomb", but is alive and searching for his lost love Princess Ananka, with the help of the rhetorical nine tana leaves brewed during the cycle of the full moon. To complete the mythology, Kharis needs a caretaker, ably filled by a gaunt John Carradine as Yousef Bey, entrusted with the task by George Zucco's Andoheb, high priest of Arkan. <br /><br />Kharis and Ananka are to be returned to their final resting place in the hills of Arkan in Egypt. But as we've seen before, being entrusted with the duty of a high priest is a sure bet to end in failure, with Carradine's character falling for the reincarnation of Ananka, Amina Monsouri (Ramsay Ames). It's shocking to see Yousef Bey and the PO'ed bandaged one come to blows over the gorgeous Amina. <br /><br />Riddle me this - in both "Tomb" and "Curse", Lon Chaney portrays the Mummy with a limp right arm folded helplessly across his chest. When he encounters the fainted Amina, he lifts her up in both arms with no problem; as soon as he puts her down his right arm returns to it's crippled position once again.<br /><br />The ending of the film is most notable - the monster gets the girl! But it's a short lived victory, as the Mummy and his kidnapped bride succumb to a swampy grave, an ancient Egyptian curse is fulfilled - "The fate of those who defy the will of the ancient gods shall be a cruel and violent death".
|
negative
|
...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10<br /><br />P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**
|
negative
|
I didn't know Willem Dafoe was so hard up for bucks that he'd disgrace himself with such shocking hamming in this monstrosity. Hell: I'll donate that money that I was going to send to Ethiopia if he's that desperate. I have never seen such a pathetic and disgusting film for a long time...who paid for this? They are either pulling some tax scam or insane. A 5-year old would be ashamed of the plot, and I'd rather get cancer than sit through more than the hour I suffered already. Everybody involved should be locked up for a year in the sodomy wing of a third world prison. Avoid at all costs. I'd give it minus 10 if possible...unbelievable.
|
negative
|
With a well thought out cast, this movie was a great comedic relief. The plot is well-written and the cast was knockout. Every bit as good as the reviews suggested (a rarity) and was highly entertaining. Being a huge John Candy fan myself, this movie was no disappointment.
|
positive
|
If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.<br /><br />May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.<br /><br />Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?<br /><br />Horrible!!
|
negative
|
*Contains spoilers due to me having to describe some film techniques, so read at your own risk!*<br /><br />I loved this film. The use of tinting in some of the scenes makes it seem like an old photograph come to life. I also enjoyed the projection of people on a back screen. For instance, in one scene, Leopold calls his wife and she is projected behind him rather than in a typical split screen. Her face is huge in the back and Leo's is in the foreground.<br /><br />One of the best uses of this is when the young boys kill the Ravensteins on the train, a scene shot in an almost political poster style, with facial close ups. It reminded me of Battleship Potemkin, that intense constant style coupled with the spray of red to convey tons of horror without much gore. Same with the scene when Katharina finds her father dead in the bathtub...you can only see the red water on the side. It is one of the things I love about Von Trier, his understatement of horror, which ends up making it all the more creepy.<br /><br />The use of text in the film was unique, like when Leo's character is pushed by the word, "Werewolf." I have never seen anything like that in a film.<br /><br />The use of black comedy in this film was well done. Ernst-Hugo Järegård is great as Leo's uncle. It brings up the snickers I got from his role in the Kingdom (Riget.) This humor makes the plotline of absurd anal retentiveness of train conductors against the terrible backdrop of WW2 and all the chaos, easier to take. It reminds me of Riget in the way the hospital administrator is trying to maintain a normalcy at the end of part one when everything is going crazy. It shows that some people are truly oblivious to the awful things happening around them. Yet some people, like Leo, are tuned in, but do nothing positive about it.<br /><br />The voice over, done expertly well by Max von Sydow, is amusing too. It draws you into the story and makes you jump into Leo's head, which at times is a scary place to be.<br /><br />The movie brings up the point that one is a coward if they don't choose a side. I see the same idea used in Dancer in the Dark, where Bjork's character doesn't speak up for herself and ends up being her own destruction. Actually, at one time, Von Trier seemed anti-woman to me, by making Breaking the Waves and Dancer, but now I know his male characters don't fare well either! I found myself at the same place during the end of Dancer, when you seriously want the main character to rethink their actions, but of course, they never do!
|
positive
|
This is a cheapy biography of a star of the black and white minstrel shows, a certain Dixie Boy Johnson. Whether this person ever really existed I don't know, but considering the cast lists a certain "Lee Lasses White" and Roscoe Karns playing said character as well, I assume the man did exist and that this is a white-washed (pardon the pun) version of his career. The plot, such as it is, follows Dixie Boy from career heights to depression at the death of his wife in childbirth, his abandonment of the child to friends, and his return at his daughter's sixteenth birthday and stage debut for reconciliation. Another forgotten man, Benny Fields, plays Dixie Boy. The man has a lovely baritone voice but no acting talent whatsoever and is a boring lump on screen. Gladys George valiantly tries her best to enliven the works to no avail. Judy Clark does the best impersonation of Betty Hutton I've ever seen although I believe she thought she was being herself. The scoring replete with many musical numbers for its short running time of 70 minutes earned a deserved Oscar nom. Worth a look.
|
negative
|
Andrew McCarthy played the role of an atheist very well. I liked the plot of the movie. It gave something to think about other than a comedy. It had a very twisted mind and a good cop versus God. A very well used plot line.
|
positive
|
Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.<br /><br />Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.<br /><br />As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).<br /><br />In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.
|
negative
|
Odd slasher movie from Producer Charles Band. In the days of Full Moon's greatest success Band said that he would never make "real killer films" because he felt that little puppets and big monsters added a fantasy element that made the films better - people killing each other is thus real and less fun. A nice philosophy and a true shame that Band, having destroyed the Full Moon studio through possible shoddy business dealings became so desperate for home cinema profits that he started making exactly what the likes of Blockbuster wanted and therefore sacrificed creativity and originality. The team behind this one also worked on 'Delta Delta Die!' and 'Birth Rite' - both equally bland by Full Moon standards. Debbie Rochon is on usual top form here as a newbie to a gang of dudes and dudettes who decide to make up a story about a 'murder club'. She - as one would obviously - does all she can to join and then panic sets in because it was not a true story and silly Ms Rochon believed it and now everybody will have to run around getting covered in blood and maybe killing each other or maybe not. The choice is there's and with regard to this movie its yours...not recommended but not entirely bad either.
|
negative
|
This is the kind of film one initially selects to make up the numbers from video rental.....only to discover an under-rated entertaining and enjoyable movie!! The opening sequence of the police arriving at a dark and rainy house wherein the "wife" has committed murder.......or is it??....and the remainder of the film seeks to unravel what really happened....OK...the film is a bit "campy"...but has good editing and dialogue.....professional acting.....often humorous......and the very last scene with the facial expression is one of the best of its' kind......definitely worth watching.....deserving at least a 7 or an 8!
|
positive
|
As a movie this barely rates a 4 but for movie fans of the 1940s period, it's almost a must-see and rates a 9 as a variety show! I was drawn to watch this by the presence of Richard (Captain Midnight) Webb who plays the Colonel in charge of the event. What surprised me was the stunning performance of Doris Day. Outside of 'Calamity Jane', I've never seen her put over a song better than she does here. Randolph Scott is memorable as well, even if he doesn't see much screen time. It's been a while since I saw the movie but I was almost sure Humphrey Bogart put in an appearance. With so many familiar faces, it's hard to keep track. If it ever turns up on a TV station near you, be sure to catch the Doris Day sequence, if nothing else!<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Kudos to Fawcett to taking on roles that, at the time were considered controversial. To my recollection, rape was still a taboo subject in the 1980's, and women's rights and emotions were rarely so deeply examined during that time.<br /><br />Fawcett is simply a woman who is followed, then stalked by actor James Russo. He is adequate as the obsessed psychopath, but at times a bit transparent.<br /><br />Diana Scarwid has a bit role, as does Alfre Woodard as the house mate. Woodard worries about the legal consequences when Fawcett, the rape victim, takes revenge on the culprit. The scene where she throws a frying pan of hot oil at Russo is classic, and as the rapist he deserves it. She then keeps him in bondage, and the consequences must be faced.<br /><br />A very real story reflecting the emotions and rage of rape victims who have been violated, physically, and mentally. Highly recommended. 8/10.
|
positive
|
This is a wonderful movie in a lot of ways. Everyone in my family enjoyed it. The animation is excellent and easily demonstrates that there are plenty of producers who create films that are as visually brilliant as anything that comes from the Disney Studio.<br /><br />One difference from the normal Disney fare is that this Dreamworks movie does not feature some wise-cracking side kick for comedy relief. And, there are no sudden moments where the characters break into song. I am sure that a scene at the beginning of the film would not appear in a Disney picture: the birth of Spirit. But it is done tastefully and is not offensive at all. "Spirit" was a great breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong. I have loved Disney for years and will continue to do so. <br /><br />"Spirit" is another example of great animated fare. As soon as it was over, my kids wanted to watch it again. I had the same feeling. I thoroughly recommend it.
|
positive
|
...I cannot believe I was hooked on this show instantly, after seeing the first scene I was in it deep. <br /><br />Anyway, first of all the guys are hot, Cappy, Evan, Calvin, Fischer, Cappy, Heath, Cappy etc.<br /><br />Secondly, the girls are cute, sexy, smart and are not afraid of being called bitches. I like that. Which at the same time doesn't make them mean and greedy, just realistic.<br /><br />Third the relationships are so great, especially Casey and Cappy. Lately every show turns very away from it's original path and people end up with someone who wasn't even in the first season. Cappy and Casey's relationship is true love, a kind that lasts. They loved each other throughout the years and it didn't end when a guest star appeared. <br /><br />In todays world maybe it's kind of unbelievable for two people to love each other for a long time but it happens. And people define each other in college so I knew exactly who I wanted to be with in college. Just like Casey and Cappy. <br /><br />I HOPE THERE ARE MANY MORE SEASONS OF THIS SHOW AND I HOPE WE CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASEY AND CAPPY NOW THAT THEY WILL PROBABLY STAY TOGETHER, at Thanksgiving... Love this show
|
positive
|
If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.
|
negative
|
**1/2 Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton and Jon Abrahams. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra.<br /><br />Yet another classic horror film remade with dunder-headed teenage acting despite grizzly and creative deaths. Based on the 1953 Vincent Price film House of Wax where a maniac kills unsuspecting teenage hooligans and turns them into priceless wax figures. Still with the fantastic set design to make the whole house into wax the movie is a typical classic horror remake like Tobe Hooper's 1974 classic Texas Chainsaw Massacre later remade, despite creativity and so-so acting the movie was still just a gore picture. Director Serra showed mild enthusiasm with his directing but still worth watching. My final rating 7/10.
|
positive
|
Christopher Nolan's first directorial effort, a year before he did "Memento," and this is almost as brilliant as that classic. He uses time differentials in a similar manner to tell his story, and it's a very clever one.<br /><br />Bill is this young writer who begins following complete strangers around just to see where they live and what they're all about. One day, he follows this man, Cobb, who turns the tables and confronts Bill, who breaks down and confesses what he's up to. <br /><br />Cobb is a burglar and he takes Bill along on a few jobs to teach him the ropes. Both men are voyeurs of a sort and a bond begins to grow between the two of them. <br /><br />But there's an ulterior motive for Cobb nurturing this relationship, and it all ties in very smartly at the end. No, I won't spoil it but this is a very cool movie and I'm beginning to think Christopher Nolan is a genius.<br /><br />If you like suspense films with surprise endings, this one is a must see.
|
positive
|
This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.
|
positive
|
At the end of the movie i still don't know whether i liked it or not. So was the case with most of the reviewers. But none the less i still feel that the movie is worth a 7 for the amount of efforts put in. <br /><br />long ago i read a quote: THERE ARE 2 KIND OF WRITERS, 1. THOSE WHO THINK AND WRITE. AND 2. THOSE WRITE AND MAKE THE READERS THINK. while here i feel that GUY Ritchie took this way too literally and left all the thinking for the audience.<br /><br />i felt that the movie was a mixed bag filled with some of THE DEVILS ADVOCATE and FIGHT CLUB....<br /><br />it is definitely a classic: something which no one understands but appreciates....<br /><br />what i don't understand: why stathom(Jake Green) had a blackout (thats how it all began), all the riddles and mysteries in the movie have been taken care of except this one.<br /><br />well if you are reading this review to find the solution as what this movie was all about: i'll post the very midnight it strikes me and if you are still deciding to watch this movie or not: then answer this first.... when you come across a puzzle labeled as 'no one has ever solved' would you like to try? <br /><br />i would
|
positive
|
For those that were interested in knowing how exactly humanity came to be encased in big red pods that make me crave pomegranate, there is the duo of the "Second Renaissance" shorts. I'm not exactly sure why they are split into two parts, especially since they're credited as one on the DVD (and are these shorts viewed on any other format but the DVD?), but they're informative even if they have a few gaps.<br /><br />What really makes this first part stand out, from the second part and the rest of the animations as well, is the parallels it shows between robot uprising and civil rights. Graphic homages to slavery, fascism, concentration camps, and mass graves are mixed with verbal references to the Million Man March and humanity's God-complex. In fact, "God" is never really referenced by these shorts, instead replaced by "Man's own image".<br /><br />As far as the shorts go in the collection, "The Second Renaissance: Part I" is by far the most effective in bringing out emotion. It's a sorrowful and disturbing view of the potential of humanity to become "the architect of its own destruction." Some may be turned off by some of the concepts this short rips directly out of previously established science fiction literature, but then again, that's basically what most of the Matrix series has done, and it's been a driving force behind its success.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
|
positive
|
I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought back to life. The "zombies" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical "flesh-eating zombie" movie.
|
positive
|
I saw UZUMAKI about a year ago and was mesmerized. The only Japanese horror film I had seen before this one was KWAIDAN (Which I proudly own on DVD, by the way), superb! The idea of a town being absorbed by spirals sounds exactly like something out of Lovecraft. Certainly it reminds one of SHADOW OVER INNSMOUTH, of the inhabitants slowly turning into monstrosities (in this case giant snails). And who can forget the washing machine sequence? I hope we will soon see this one available on Region 1 DVD (I see that Sundance has recently screened it on US TV, hopefully they'll do it again very soon) so that we can all see it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!!!!
|
positive
|
Almost certainly the best Three Stooges short with Shemp, 'Brideless Groom' is as good as any of the trio's best shorts featuring Curly. Memorable Stooge moments abound. The opening with 'Professor' Shemp giving voice lessons to homely, untalented and lascivious Miss Dinkelmeyer (Dee Green), wincing at her horrendous singing notes and fighting off her advances, is an excellent example of Shemp Howard at his best. Many considered him the most naturally funny of the Stooges.<br /><br />Later, when Moe and Larry try to help him get spiffed up to find a wife (and claim $500,000), Shemp thinks he has cut off his head when his mirror gets flipped backward. Fixing the mirror, he cries with relief, "THERE I am
and pretty as a picture!" "Yea," Moe quickly replies, trying to hem his slacks, "of an APE!"<br /><br />The best scene (and maybe Shemp's best with the trio) comes when he pays a call on attractive young Miss Hopkins (Christine McIntyre). Mistaking him for long-lost "Cousin Basil," she smothers him with hugs and kisses (also leading to a hilarious bit between Moe and Larry in the hall), not giving him a chance to explain his true identity. Suddenly the REAL Cousin Basil calls and she goes berserk, slapping him repeatedly and accusing him of taking advantage of "a poor
. helpless
defenseless
woman!" That final line is delivered as she socks him in the jaw (with a real punch, according to Shemp and crew members), knocking him through the door and into the hall in a perfectly executed gag. "What happened, kid?" Moe asks. "Can I help it if I ain't Cousin Basil?" Shemp asks before passing out.<br /><br />Other classic bits include Moe and Shemp getting tangled in a phone booth, trying to find a lost coin, Larry getting slapped because of Shemp's bad looks (his face pressed against the phone booth glass), and the great girl fight in the Justice of the Peace's apartment. The great Emil Sitka delivers his classic line (inscribed on his tombstone), "Hold hands, you love birds" over and over as his apartment is trashed.<br /><br />I prescribe 'Brideless Groom' as medicine for anyone who thinks the Stooges' glory years ended when Curly left. True, Shemp didn't have as MANY great shorts with the group as Curly, but that was due to an increasing lack of support from Columbia and his (and the others') advancing ages. When Shemp was healthy and the trio was given decent material to work with, they were still on the top of their game.
|
positive
|
Please do not blame Korea for this bad movie. I am in Korea (please excuse bad English). It sadden me to see these movies which make Korea look like obsessed with blood and sex. It sadden me even more to see animal killings and hear Americans say that is how Korea is. We do not eat live animals!! So please stop excusing movie for its crime by saying it is the culture! There is scenes with the man eating live animals and non Koreans think it is normal. No it is disgusting to us too. The director is a misfit, sick individual who has obsession with killing and sex with family members. I wish America and France will stop glorifying this bad man who is laughable in his own country. Please watch ANY OTHER movie from Korea, that will give you ideas of how artistic we really are. This movie is rubbish.
|
negative
|
Directed by Michael Curtiz, Four Daughters is about four musically gifted sisters, their suitors, and their father, a minor conductor.Playing sardonic, quick talking Mickey Borden is John Garfield in the role that made him an instant star.The movie also stars Claude Rains as Adam Lemp and the Lane sisters, Lola, Rosemary, and Priscilla, and Gale Page as his spirited daughters.Its definitive scene takes place in the Lemps' living room. Cigarette hanging from his lips, Borden is playing one of his own compositions. Priscilla Lane's Ann Lemp tells him the piece is beautiful. But he says, "It stinks." He continues: "It hasn't got a beginning or an end, only a middle." Ann urges him to create a beginning and an end. Borden replies, "What for? The fates are against me. They tossed a coin--heads I'm poor, tails I'm rich. But they tossed a two-headed coin." Audiences loved the way Garfield, in his tough city voice, said It stinks. That scene created Garfield's screen persona as the eternal outsider. Four Daughters is a slice of Americana with Garfield, in a compelling performance, supplying more than a hint of darkness.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
That's right, you heard me. I am a huge fan of James Patterson. I own 10 of his books, and I have read the entire series about Lindsey Boxer. In my opinion, the screenwriter should be shot. <br /><br />What right did any film maker have to slaughter a terrific work of fiction and make it into a mockery of the mystery genre? If I ever thought that Harry Potter was butchered, then Michael O'Hara has proved me wrong. <br /><br />I can only pray that the next screenwriter who tackles this fabulous book will do it a great deal more justice. To Michael O'Hara and Russell Mulcahy: don't quit your day job.
|
negative
|
Well,<br /><br />First of all, as many reviewers have pointed out - this is a rip off of the Martin Cahill story - first represented by the BBC and by the John Boorman film "The General" - which is a great film and far, far superior to this one.<br /><br />Speaking as a native British person, the supporting cast to Kevin Spacey was really good in terms of British and Irish acting talent, especially Peter Mullan - but it was totally wasted. The characters were c**p! And as for Kevin Spacey - didn't come across as a loveable rogue but as nothing really substantial or significant.<br /><br />Not a lot to redeem this film. The best bits are the gags and tricks nicked from the other films it rips off. Compare notes on this film and "The General" - I'd be interested to see what others think.<br /><br />
|
negative
|
This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...<br /><br />My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps.
|
negative
|
This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours
|
negative
|
At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.<br /><br />My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.<br /><br />If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).
|
negative
|
Three girls, the youngest descendents of the Gaylord family, one of America's most royal families, are orphaned at a young age. Right before he goes off to France to fight in WWI, their father tells the oldest, Fiona, never to sell the land. By the time the sisters have become adults, they have had to squander most of their money to pay for lawyers to defend their property. Through certain loopholes in the father's will, a man named Charles Barclay stands to gain possession of the Gaylord land, on which he wants to build a complex called Barclay Circle. Barclay is actually based on John D. Rockefeller, who was buying up land and buildings from affluent families in New York so he could build Rockefeller Center.<br /><br />This film deals mostly with the melodramatic concerns of the three sisters. Fiona, well played by Barbara Stanwyck, although it's certainly not to be counted as one of her best roles, seems like a cold, domineering woman, and it becomes clear that she has some skeletons in her closet. Susanna, played by Nancy Coleman, is a little ditsy and completely in love with a young modern artist named Gig Young. Coleman's was my favorite performance in the film. Evelyn, played by Geraldine Fitzgerald, is a rather pretentious seductress with a monocle who married into noble blood in England, but that doesn't stop her from trying to steal Gig from her sister. The three sisters are developed quite well but, as is the major trend in The Gay Sisters, never well enough. Charles Barclay is played by George Brent. He isn't very good. Well, he would be satisfactory if the story had played out the way it should have, but he always seems like a scumbag in the film. When we're asked to sympathize with him late in the film, it's impossible. Gig Young is played by, huh?, Gig Young. No, he's not playing himself. What happened is that the actor, who had acted in several movies previously under his real name, Byron Barr, was pressured by Warner Brothers to change his name to something more catchy. I'm not sure who made the final choice, but he eventually changed his screen name to Gig Young, after the character whom he plays in The Gay Sisters. Weird, eh? Young is quite good through most of the film, but the script does some unfortunate things with his character late in the film which ultimately harm the audience's sympathy for him. In two other supporting roles, Helen Thimig and Gene Lockhart are quite good.<br /><br />The Gay Sisters had great potential to turn out to be one of the great cinematic family sagas. The characters are all interesting, as are their situations. Unfortunately, the script never strives for anything more than the simplest melodrama. If it had made the interrelationships of all the major characters more complex, fleshed out, for example, the rivalry between Evelyn and Susanna or made the flashback more intricate, the film could have been fantastic. It also could have fleshed out the prologue more, let us know more about the Gaylord family. We need to care more about the characters and we need to sympathize with them more. And the ending needed some major fixing. It basically just gives up at the end. Fiona's problems are solved so poorly that it hurts. Whatever sympathy her character had gained as the film progressed falls apart. It's also far too happy. This story seems moving towards tragedy, or maybe just a sense of historical significance or loss. And we still hate Barclay. And the conflict between the two sisters and Gig is never solved. As bad as Fiona's story ends, Susanna's, Gig's, and Evelyn's is even worse.<br /><br />I still liked the film. It's thoroughly watchable, even if it doesn't involve us like other great films of the era. 7/10, mostly for its potential. It should have been remade, or the novel should have been re-adapted, at some point during the studio era. It is too dated to be remade now. The 1950s would have been the best time, during the time of films like Giant.
|
positive
|
Robert Lansing plays a scientist experimenting with passing objects through solid matter, but he goes too far one night and unintentionally makes himself four-dimensional! Atomic-age fantasy is rather charming in a very cheesy way. Perhaps it was considered a thoughtful sci-fi in its time (with psychological overtones), yet seen today the film is mildly overbaked and naive; it's a camp-fest tailor-made for TV's late-late show. Wooden performances by Lansing and Lee Meriwether barely rate as one-dimensional, though Patty Duke (playing a cute brat pre-"Miracle Worker") gets a colorful, memorable exit. <br /><br />** from ****
|
negative
|
A beautifully photographed and paced short film. It evocatively captures the feeling of this family and much of the country during the period just prior to and after Pearl Harbor.<br /><br />I appreciated the visual look of the film -- naturalistic and simultaneously poetic. Great work by a great D.P., David Boyd.<br /><br />Though a family film, the story never becomes maudlin or saccharin. We understand and believe the motivation that propels the young boy on his odyssey. I understand the love of the younger brother for his older brother and do not question why he sets out to do what he does. I understand that he is driven by a deep desire to be with his brother in this time of crisis. The kid is tough, and the performance by Jonathan Furr is superb as is the veteran performance by Ron Perlman.
|
positive
|
Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.<br /><br />The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever! <br /><br />The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.<br /><br />The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know? <br /><br />There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?
|
negative
|
Although the movie was only so so the closed captioning was by far the best I have ever seen! Most of the time the spelling is terrible and the captioning out of sync. I use the closed captioning even though I can hear well but find a lot of actors mumble. Also many times the sound track overrides the dialogue. Thanks!
|
negative
|
One of the most macabre, depressing, yet eye-opening docs. I've watched in awhile. There's no narration or story that's told, just a "third eye" type camera following around 2 couples of heroin addicts in NYC through the seasons. Watching them shoot up on the floors of public washrooms then "clean" their needles in the public toilets... sometimes it's a bit too much and you need to hit pause just to go for a breather.<br /><br />Anyone currently in recovery of alcohol/drug addition should watch this when they're craving - it really shows you to what you could be going back to! After seeing this it's a wonder how anyone could even try this drug to begin with.<br /><br />The only thing it needed was a follow up at the end to tell where these people are today. Judging from what is shown in the doc., there's no hope for any of them. They mention wanting to get better and quit, but it seems the only end to their habits is to quit by way of dying.<br /><br />This definitely isn't for all audiences. I found myself kind of like watching a car accident - after I started watching it I just couldn't turn it off. I had to keep watching with a dark/morbid fascination of what it's like inside the lives of these addicts.
|
positive
|
Was this a comedy or was it a drama? I begin this review by asking this question because the film that I just witnessed, Hollywood Shuffle, was neither funny or rather dramatic. While it tried so hard to make a point, because of this lack of definition (comedy or drama), the clever themes and pointed remarks were lost. While I am a strong believer that there is too much racial profiling happening in Hollywood, even today, I do not believe that Townsend's directorial debut did much to stop it. Instead, I feel it only added more fuel to the fire. Townsend's comic timing in this film was disastrous due to the fact that the elements he was supposed to be making fun of, he was instead promoting and vice versa. The parts that were supposed to be serious were somehow destroyed by the poor lack of funny comedy. Townsend had a decent concept with this film, but sadly the execution is what ultimately hurt this film. If you watch the preview before the film (which I constantly do), you will immediately get the wrong impression of what you are going to see. The preview gives the impression of a very intelligent, comic film that prides itself on the intelligence of the viewers, but the actually film could not be further from the truth.<br /><br />The main problem with Hollywood Shuffle is not story itself (because it is lacking in elaboration); it is Townsend's direction. He had a wonderful concept with this film. Exploit the Hollywood that exploits our race. Decent idea, but why couldn't he execute it very well? The first reason is that his ideas are too random and sporadic. The structure of this film was like watching a heart attack on a monitor at the hospital, we are literally everywhere without any warning or map. It was obvious that Townsend had quite a bit to say, but only a short amount of time to do it in. So, instead of defining his characters, developing his themes, and actually creating a smart film, he just throws it all together and prays that it works. Sadly, it doesn't. Instead of a smart comedy, we have a hodgepodge of so many ideas, comedic skits, and underused actors that this film goes from decent to nearly unwatchable. What hurts Townsend the most are his brief, attempt to be funny, interruptions throughout the film. From battling a villain known as Jerry Curl to parodying Siskel & Ebert, Townsend's attempt to poke fun while speak a message about the film industry falters. This is because these small intermittent skits actually distract from the central focus of the film and actually destroy internally. While Townsend seems to be trying to make a joke about life in Hollywood, he actually is simply connecting to every stereotype and cliché in the book. What could have been beautiful satire transforms into simply generic humor that never quite stands apart from the rest.<br /><br />So, if you find yourself not laughing at the humor of this story, perhaps there is some comfort in knowing that some of the Wayans brothers are around to help spice up this dull story. WRONG! The Wayans are in this film, but Townsend demonstrates that he has the ability to even bring the worst out even in this entertaining family. Definitely in their pre-In Living Color moments, we see that comedy was something that all needed to constantly improve upon. Perhaps it was Townsend's direction, or just maybe this atrocious story, but these typically funny comedians were obviously underused and ignored when it came to critics of this film. I just thought that with the talent pool that Townsend had to pull from that Hollywood Shuffle would have been funny, bright, and a true stab at this obvious Hollywood dilemma. Sadly, it was none of the above.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this was a workable film. There were some moments (while they were few and way far between) that had a smile on my face, the final product just didn't settle well with me. Townsend can be funny, but in this film it just felt like he was playing against himself, instead of through his personal experiences and troubles. I realize that he was probably speaking the truth, but it never came through as that. Instead, we are threaded through a weak story, which supports itself with idiotic flash clips that may have worked for a sitcom, but surely didn't work for this film. Even for those that comment that this was his directorial debut and that he was learning from this film, I would have to disagree. If you are starting fresh, either have a tight script or defined themes. Townsend had neither of these, and combined with the inability to control his actors, he just failed in a ball of flames.<br /><br />Overall, this was rather disappointing to watch. It reminded me of a grade school Spelling Bee where it is finally your child's time to spell. The word is tough, but as the first two to three letters come out, you think that it is going to work perfectly, but then there is that random "P" and silent "R" that forces your excitement to come tumbling down. That is how I felt with Hollywood Shuffle. At first, I saw the potential, I saw the theme and the motive behind the picture, but through fuzzy and inexperienced technique and after the first couple of scenes, I experienced that deep fall feeling. Townsend sank his own ship on this one, and I don't think Hollywood Shuffle will ever re-submerge as a pivotal moment of Hollywood cinema.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
|
negative
|
I've heard a lot about Porno Holocaust and its twin film Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead. Both films are interchangeable and were filmed at the same time on the same location with the same actors changing clothes for each film (and taking them off). If you are expecting the D'Amato genius displayed in films like Buio Omega or Death Smiles on Murder, you won't find it here. Nonetheless this film has a charm that exploitation fans will not be able to resist. Where else will you see hardcore sex mixed with a zombie/monster and his enormous penis that strangles and chokes women to death? Only from D'Amato. There is some amount of gore in which many of the men are bludgeoned to death. The film is set on a beautiful tropical island. As far as I know there is no subtitled version, so if you don't speak Italian you wont know what is going on...but who cares right? In all honesty, Gore fans will probably fast forward through the hardcore sex. And if anyone is actually watching this for the sex only, will for sure be offended instantly. I can just imagine modern day porn fans tracing back through D'Amato's output and coming across this atrocity! Out of the two I find Erotic Nights Of The Living Dead far superior. But, don't bother watching either if they are cut. Porno Holocaust is extremely low budget as expected. Even the monster looks no where as good as George Eastman's character in Anthropophagus. The film is worth watching for laughs and to complete your D'Amato film quest.
|
positive
|
All budding filmmakers should watch this movie - it is like a masterclass in digital film- making in itself. Some of the scenes look like they have been shot on much higher production values than what they really have been. It is very encouraging that such a well crafted piece of work can be made on a low budget. The acting is very good, and the characters are very interesting, particularly that of the lead boy (John Kielty), who manages to play a teenager experiencing difficulties whilst remaining really likable. His beautiful but fading mother was also very well portrayed, and the relationship between her and her boss was very intriguing. This is a very quirky, interesting piece and I will be looking for anything else made by the same team. The director is certainly one to watch.
|
positive
|
A disappointing film.<br /><br />The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.<br /><br />Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?<br /><br />Technically, a disgusting shot film.
|
negative
|
this is without a doubt the worst most idiotic horrible piece o' crap i have ever watched.<br /><br />this movies plot is that some guy goes crazy and dresses up as santa claus and kills people BECAUSE he saw his mother give his father oral sex while he was dressed as santa clause. THAT IS WHY HE WENT INSANE? is it just me or is that the worst damn reason for someone to go insane like EVER? and that's not the only thing. i'm being serious when I say NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS DAMN MOVIE. nothing until like 1 hour and 15 minutes of it have gone by.<br /><br />there's an entire friggin scene where he glues a friggin santa beard on to him. IT'S A FRIGGIN MINUTE LONG. WHO THE HELL WANTS TO SEE THAT? however i must say the ending of this movie made me crap myself laughing at it. so if you see this movie on TV or something come back in like 1 hour and 20 minutes just to watch without a doubt the worst ending in all of cinematic history. and i'm serious about that.<br /><br />it's not even so good its bad, it's tedious, it's idiotic, it made me want to break the vcr. it's just not worth your time also i'm sure every other review mentioned this but The actress who played the mother on Home Improvement was in this movie for a split second. YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW BAD THIS MOVIE IS? I'D RATHER WATCH HOME IMPROVEMENT FOR SIXTY SIX HOURS THEN EVEN LOOK AT THIS MOVIES COVER EVER AGAIN.
|
negative
|
Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.<br /><br />Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.<br /><br />I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.
|
negative
|
weird.this is a TV movie,yet the rating on the box says it's rated R.there's nothing in the movie that would remotely qualify for an R rating.aside from that,though,the movie is very slow and pointless.i mean the idea was good,but nothing was done with the storyline.it just wasn't developed.it's mildly creepy,and the acting is actually quite good,better than the movie deserves.i don't see myself watching it again anytime soon,if ever.there have been other movies dealing with the same concept which are better made than this one.i haven't seen too many Wes Craven Films,so i can't really compare it to any of his others.as for this movie itself though,i think it is poorly conceived and poorly executed.for me,i can't give Chiller a higher rating than 3/10
|
negative
|
It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honoré describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.<br /><br />When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion. <br /><br />Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.
|
positive
|
I rarely shut a movie off after the first 10 minutes but that is what I did with this one. What turned me off was it was so obvious that the only purpose of this movie was to expose as much skin of as many B actresses as possible, and nothing else really matters.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong; I like pretty actresses and sex scenes, and sexploitation movies have their own scale of merits, but this director does nothing else right.<br /><br />For example, take the scene where the two cops (of course one guy one gal and OF COURSE there is all this supposedly witty banter between them) are talking over while standing over the first dead body. The camera pans between them for each line, (there's more than one screen-width between them!) and you end up wondering whether you're seasick from that or the clueless dialog.<br /><br />Well, it MIGHT have gotten better after the first 10 minutes, but I wouldn't know. I declined the sucker bet and found something better to do.
|
negative
|
This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".<br /><br />Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.<br /><br />Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.<br /><br />Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.<br /><br />In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.<br /><br />In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.<br /><br />The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.<br /><br />Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.
|
negative
|
There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.<br /><br />But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.<br /><br />All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.<br /><br />I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.<br /><br />There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.<br /><br />The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?
|
negative
|
Yuck! And again I say...YUCK! The original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. The original movie had a lot to say and didn't go out of its way to say it. And, it had a naked chick on a motorcycle.<br /><br />This version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. It looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. The movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. It is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife.<br /><br />There was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry...
|
negative
|
The only thing romantic about this movie is the pain and anguish of romance. If you are expecting this cinematic adaptation of another Nicholas Sparks novel to follow the surefire formula of previous films, such as "Message in a Bottle," "Nights at Rodanthe," and "A Walk to Remember," think again. Nobody dies from an accident trying to save somebody else and the romance here doesn't transform these characters. If anything, it makes them even more miserable than they were.<br /><br />A soft-spoken Special Forces Army Sergeant, John Tyree (Channing Tatum of "G.I. Joe"), has a memorable two-week fling while on leave from the military with an impressionable college girl, Savannah Curtis (radiant Amanda Seyfriend of "Mamma Mia"), who is spending spring break in South Carolina. Savannah doesn't drink, smoke, but she tells John that her head is filled with profanity. Inevitably, John and Savannah topple madly in love with each other and launch an endless exchange letters of love letters that are sleep-inducing by any standard. Tyree is off in the world serving the military in some godforsaken corner of the globe while she is away at college perusing his letters in class. Just as they are getting hot and heavy between them, suicidal terrorists crash planes into the World Trade Center. John reenlists along with his buddies in a wave of patriotism without discussing the option with Savannah.<br /><br />Meanwhile, another guy, shaggy but likable family friend Tim (Henry Thomas of "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial") who has a motherless, autistic child named Alan becomes the object of Savannah's sentiment. She is the kind of girl who helps build houses for the less fortunate and wants to start a summer horse ranch for autistic children. She delays what seems forever before she finally contacts Tyree with the eponymous letter. Indeed, she dumps him for a man with a disease! Later, she confesses to John that she knew the sound of his voice would have broken her resolve to marry Tim, so she doesn't make that fateful call. Predictably, John agonizes over Savannah's lack of communication. During a routine mission, our hero takes a couple of terrorist bullets in the back and winds up in Germany. While all this is transpiring, Tyree is trying to come to terms with his own coin-collecting father, Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins of "Step Brothers"), who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. It seems that his father is on his last legs after John gets out of the hospital. The lead female character lacks a shred of respect and her betrayal of Tyree amounts to a pretty low blow. Tyree, his father, and Tyree's commander, Keith Robinson, are the only sympathetic characters in this long distance epistolary romance. <br /><br />"Dear John" gives new meaning to lethargic love stories. Yuck!
|
negative
|
Italy produced a lot of really great and original horror films in the 1960's - and this is certainly one of them! The first thing you will notice about Danse Macabre is the style of the film. Shot in beautiful black and white, and due to director Antonio Margheriti's use of lighting; the film almost looks like it could be a German expressionistic horror film. This, coupled with the horror-filled plot line ensures that Danse Macabre is a film that truly captures the essence of horror. Of course, the fact that the beautiful Barbara Steele appears in the film doesn't harm matters - and the good news continues as, in this film, she gets to flex her acting muscles more than she did in the films that made her famous. The plot is very aware of the time in which this was released, and so incorporates the great Edgar Allen Poe. We follow Alan Foster, a writer who accepts a bet from Poe himself and Lord Blackwood that he can't spend an entire night in the latter's creepy old castle. Everyone that has spent the night there previously has died...and our hero is about to meet the previous wager-takers! <br /><br />Nowadays, horror films don't tend to focus so much on each shot and the result is that there isn't much beauty left in the genre. It is refreshing, therefore, to see this film. Many of the shots here are incredibly beautiful - from the female side of the couple wearing just a see-through skirt, to my personal favourite - a shot of smoke creeping in from under a door. This my first Antonio Margheriti film, and even after seeing just this one; it's obvious that he was one of Italy's premier directors. Also interesting is the fact that screenplay was co-written by another of the Italian greats; Django creator Sergio Corbucci. The plot can meander a little too much at times, but there's always enough atmosphere on hand to make sure that the film never becomes boring - and the fact that it is always intriguing, even when the plot slows down, ensures the same thing. The way that Danse Macabre utilises the 'haunted house' theme is both well done and original, and helps to keep the story as eerie as possible. On the whole, fans of Italian and/or cult cinema will not want to miss this little gem!
|
positive
|
This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.<br /><br />In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.<br /><br />It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.<br /><br />In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.<br /><br />If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy.
|
positive
|
Dolph Lundgren is back! Detention marks Dolphs first film in nearly 2 years, and that is following the delayed Hidden Agenda. This film still marks an improvement for Dolph over his cheapie trilogy of Jill Rips, Agent Red and Stormcatcher. However this film is well below the standard of Hidden Agenda, which was better in almost every respect. What this film does have in it's favour from Dolph's previous outing, is a sense of cheesy fun. The film also has a rejuvenated Dolph back in a high action role, and it's good to see Dolph doing his own stunts again.<br /><br />The films story is ludicrous and prime B-movie material. An ex-military man is now a teacher and on his last day of teaching, whilst taking a Detention class, he runs into some Slovakian bad guys who have taken over the school to use as cover for a big drug deal. The film has no originality but in a movie of this type you need to have a sense of fun with all the cliches. If you take it too seriously the audience will find little to enjoy. Thankfully the filmmakers don't take matters too seriously and along with all the action cliches you can think of and the predictability, this film has a so bad it's enjoyable kind of vibe.<br /><br />Where the film is let down is miss-using a fairly decent budget. The budget of around 10 million has not been well spent. It's all up on screen with plenty of carnage and big explosions but a lot of the shootouts lack imagination. The opening action is okay but after that the good moments become more sparse. There are some good moments. You have a car careering through school hallways for example and a decent shootout at the beginning, with plenty of destruction. The rest of the shootouts are fairly mechanical but there is plenty going on onscreen. <br /><br />As for the cast. Hidden Agenda boasted the best cast Dolph has worked with in ages. There was a good standard of actors for a DTV film. This however has problems. The actors are on the most part bad. The bad guys are terrible, but the lead bad guy has a kind of enjoyable cheesiness because Alex Karsis plays it so over the top and without the hint of any menace that you can laugh at the pure badness. The teenagers of the piece are actually good but they are playing such cliched characters. They all hate authority, each other and all have bad attitudes and of course by the end they learn important life lessons, but generally they are decent and Chris Collins in particular has a likeability. This movie is all about Dolph though. While this film is nowhere near his best, it is nowhere near his worst. It also marks a turning point in his career. He is now back in good shape, and will be in even better shape in his next film Direct Action. Dolph looks enthusiastic here, he does all his own stunts and it is good to see him play the typical action man (running from explosions in slow-mo, one liners, and handling large weapons) again in a movie like his older ones, albeit with less flair and imagination than cliched films like Army Of One. It is good to see Dolph looking energised. His films of the last 8 or so years have seen Dolph looking a little more weary, and using doubles a lot (he still does all the fights himself though) but the new streamlined Dolph seems up for it.<br /><br />Overall this is watchable if only for the cheese value and Dolph in prime action man mode. There's not a single surprise but it has a laughably inept kind of charm. **
|
positive
|
A horror picture set ultimately to parody but still in it's play out could scare a few of those that are frailed nerved or easily disgusted when they see whats under their skin. I laughed at it though. It was easy to decipher the true killer and his acting didn't help. This only led to Potente looking even better. Anatomie is not much of a horror picture for those foreign of the genre but those contained should get a few unintentional laughs and an interesting peak at German horror cinema. 6/10
|
positive
|
I loved it. Others have revealed spoilers, but I won't. It was an unusual premise, actually sort of weird, but I went along with it completely. Camille was a difficult part to pull off convincingly; maybe that's why some people hated it. But I think Sienna was excellent and her acting skills enabled her to nail the part perfectly - without being maudlin or ridiculous. I don't know why she was even interested in a loser like James Franco, but married him anyway. I like him as an actor and also thought he did a terrific job. He has nothing to be ashamed of. There have been movies with with similar setups e.g. "Ghost". I simply love Sienna Miller and went along with the situation as written in the script. I feel her great acting talent is vastly underrated, and hope it becomes more recognized by the public. I thought all of the actors played their parts very well, and hope more people get to see the movie. I highly recommend it. I was surprised that my local Block Buster store had about 10 copies available. I definitely plan to buy it.
|
positive
|
After the lush, inspiring aerial shot in fast motion in the opening of the movie, this slipped into utter boredom and a one tone note right till the end.<br /><br />Where to begin, well I'll start with the characters. I really enjoyed them in the book, here they all were types and one dimensional morons that either had "Victim" or "Asshole" written on their foreheads from the get go. How any one didn't see through the store owner Lealand Gaunt (in a hammy and out of place performance by Sydrow)is beyond me.<br /><br />This film lacks in thrills, suspense, and in some sense yes, entertaining values. It stretches itself for far too long with not a lot of pay off. Why introduce too many annoying should-die-quick type of characters and then forget about half of them half way through? In the book practically everyone that went into the store met a grisly fate. Here, besides one of the only decent scenes that translated well from the novel (the fight between Wilma and Nettie), was a letdown and didn't have much balls. I'm sorry but after, one off screen death,a boring shoot off, and some bickering and then a couple explosions just didn't do it for me. The brutality and mean spiritedness from the book was sadly missing. The explosion of the church scene was so over the top and badly executed, all of sudden the entire city was in a brawl? It made no sense and characters that weren't introduced all the way through suddenly are, who are these people and why should I care?<br /><br />The story is all over the place and none of the scenes had momentum. I thought Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedeila were good actors in this, but the movie gives them not enough substance for me to give a damn. Amanda Plummer was credible but too pathetic to really be sympathetic (in the novel she was a sad and depressing character)here it was a too one note. J.T. Walsh was entertaining, but the role was far from interesting or layered. Too predictable. <br /><br />The soundtrack was too classy for the material it was supporting. It stood out like sore thumb. Easy there buddy, easy. Something a little less theatrical I'd assume would have worked.<br /><br />I will admit some of the gore it did manage to have was good enough I guess, The director seemed to hold back a lot of the times though. If your going to make a movie that reaches the 2 hr point be sure to have far more going on then this disaster of a adaption of on of Kings better novels.<br /><br />I often found myself laughing at scenes that were suppose to be taken seriously (Ed Harris speech at the end, or the character Hugh Priest in general), and was bored and uninterested most of the other time. Personally the director should have done so much more with this story, his approach is too tame and hides behind too much crisp cinematography to ever come off as a decent movie. The movie looks good, but not the look I think this story deserved. I mean, this dude helmed ALASKA,not a good sign. <br /><br />I'd rather just read the book, as you should too as if it is far more entertaining,layered character development, grisly violence and mayhem, a nasty sense of humour, and far more oomph. This is a butchered version, that has not much to offer. <br /><br />** out of ****
|
negative
|
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!
|
negative
|
The quintessential "let's get ready for summer movie." It's dumb, goofy, and maybe a touch dated, but my kids just saw it and they laughed as hard as I did when I first saw it. In the style of all "little guys versus the establishment" movies, so yes, the plot is very predictable, but it's warm and funny. And no, it's not Bill Murray at his Bill Murrayest, but he is starting to stretch out in what was his first starring role. Odd, though, to see how few of the "fresh young faces" in this film went on to do much more.
|
positive
|
Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration. <br /><br />The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!<br /><br />I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating?
|
negative
|
I will give it a 3 just because it showed history that we need to know about, to prevent it from happening again. I agree with the comments from the gentleman from UK. The movie was pretty terrible. All cliché, no real plot. Historical and technical inaccuracies abound. Look up the technical specs on DE 529, or any Everts class Destroyer Escort, and you will see what I mean. I now its black history month in the US, and Im going to be called a racist just for saying this, but the history of this ship is not that great. They did some escort work, chased a "submarine" that turned out to be a hulk that they rammed. Sorry, but black people did a lot more in WWII then this silly movie gives them credit for. This movie makes them look like whiners. Let the name calling commence, I can handle it.
|
negative
|
When I was a little girl (and my dad owned a video store), this was among my favorite movies. I hadn't heard much about it since then, nor did I really remember anything about it, it having been forgotten in the wake of Don Bluth's other, probably better films. I managed to track it down a few weeks ago, however, and was pleasantly surprised again. Set in New Orleans in the 1930s, the animation is delightful and the songs are memorable. There are a few goofs in continuity if you look hard enough, but they generally don't detract from the storyline, which leaves you smiling (and maybe even a little misty-eyed, if you are a lover of animals). The characters are believable (maybe even a little too grown-up for younger watchers), as well. Two paws up, and for those of you who haven't seen it in a while, definitely worth a re-watch.
|
positive
|
Have no illusions, this IS a morality story. Granger is the troubled ex-buffalo hunter, tempted back to the plains one more time by kill-crazed Taylor. Granger can see the end is near, and feels deeply for the cost of the hunt-on the herds, the Indians and the land itself. Taylor, on the other hand admittedly equates killing buffalo, or Indians to 'being with a woman.' While Granger's role of the tortured hunter is superb, it's Taylor who steals the show, as the demented, immoral 'everyman' out for the fast buck and the goodtimes. There's not a lot of bang-bang here, but the story moves along quickly, and we are treated to a fine character performance by Nolan. The theme of this story is just as poignant today, as in the 1800s-man's relationship to the land and what's on it, and racism. Considering when this was made, the Censors must have been wringing their hankies during the scenes in the 'bawdy house', Taylor's relationship with the squaw, and much of the dialogue. Although downbeat, this is truly a great western picture.
|
positive
|
This film should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding "fake applause" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time.
|
negative
|
A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.
|
negative
|
OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!
|
negative
|
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.<br /><br />The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.<br /><br />However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.<br /><br />The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.<br /><br />I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.<br /><br />By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.
|
negative
|
Best Years of Our Lives is a film that slipped under my radar for years--I had heard about it, but never had the opportunity to watch it. Thanks to TCM On Demand, I was able to watch it uncut and commercial free.<br /><br />What surprised me about this film was how quickly it was made after the war. The film frankly deals with the people who were wounded in the war, both physically and mentally. It manages neatly to encompass nearly all the varieties of war experience within three characters.<br /><br />We have the Air Force officer, who was a veteran of the early European bombing campaign. Because of the horrific attrition rate amongst the crews of the bombers, the Air Force at that time had a reputation for cranking out officers who quickly rose through the ranks. Such was case with this fellow who went from a lowly soda jerk in civilian life to a Captain and bombardier of his B-17. He also suffers from PTSD, called "battle fatigue" at the time.<br /><br />We have the Army non-com who served in the Pacific, and suffered through the horrors of that campaign. His story is opposite that of the Air Force fellow in that he goes from a prestigious job as a banker to a lowly grunt in the Army and rises to the rank of Sergeant. From the stripes on his sleeve it is clear that he is the highest level of Sergeant, yet he is still on the front line.<br /><br />Finally we have the Navy Seaman, who is part of the faceless support staff, commonly referred to as REMFs (Rear Echelon MFers)by the fellows on the line. Ironically, he suffers the worst physical wounds when working as a mechanic below decks on a Navy ship, his ship is struck, presumably by a kamikaze and is sunk with loss of 400 lives. He is pulled from the water but his badly burned hands are amputated and replaced with prosthetic hooks.<br /><br />BYOOL tells the story of how these three meet on a transport plane they have boarded for home, and how they readjust into civilian society.<br /><br />What impressed me most about this film is that despite the obvious issues that face the three protagonists, it never descends into melodrama. The Navy kid, played by an actual amputee, is placed into situations where we might feel sorry for him, yet the script never lets us feel that emotion. The Army sergeant is clearly an alcoholic, and the story points that out, but never dwells on it. The Air Force captain struggles with the loss of status when he is forced to return to the drug store he soda jerked in (now bought out by a large chain) and take a demeaning job to support his ungrateful and disloyal wife.<br /><br />The script allows plenty of opportunities for all these characters to come to some dramatic climax regarding their plights, but it neatly avoids that. But for the overly dramatic score, the director has tread around exploiting the obvious.<br /><br />In one scene that well represents the entire movie, the daughter of the Army sergeant (Frederic March) is having a discussion with her father and mother regarding the Air Force captain. Despite his marriage, they have fallen in love, and she is determined to break up the marriage which is obviously troubled. Now we've seen thousands of scenes typical of this where the father blusters angrily and the daughter ends up running away to her room in tears, slamming the door and falling on the bed. Later, Mom shows up, consoles daughter and offers words of motherly wisdom, and everybody lives happily ever after.<br /><br />In BYOOL, this scene plays out completely differently than the cliché I have described above. Sure the conversation gets heated, but all parties are reasonable, and there is a serious and timeless discussion of the nature of relationships that has some of the best dialog I have seen.<br /><br />Ultimately, BYOOL is a highly satisfying film, with honest performances from the entire cast. Technically, it is well shot, the editing and cinematography frame, but never overshadow the gripping narrative. Despite the score, which is cliché and over-dramatic, I give this film the highest rating that it clearly deserves
|
positive
|
The story was disjointed, the acting was not of any callibre you can catagorise. More of a serial pilot than an actual movie. I wanted to like this movie but just could not find anything to like about it. Whatever it was that made The Lost boys so likable was obviously absent here. Altho it tried hard. Plot hooks were clumsily placed amidst what could have been an episode of dawsons creek with dark clothes, and the story arc was going nowhere soon. Very disappointing for me. The end scenes were special effects driven convenience and how the villain of the story planned his whole scheme.. who was he (or she) trying to kid, talk about naive. Stick with films of this kind of genre from the eighties, when they had more of an idea.
|
negative
|
The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad.
|
negative
|
Steven Rea plays a forensic scientist thrust on the job in Sovie Russia in 1982..in the very first hours of his job a body of a murdered girl is brought in..he has his workers go back to look for evidence and they bring back five more bodies..this starts the story of the hunt for one of the worst serial killers in modern day history..It is a stark depressing dark movie that explores how the bureaucracy of the old Soviet Union indirectly contributed or caused the deaths of many of the killers victims.It also explores in Donald Sutherland's character how the proper usage of bureaucracy in a communist govt can help achieve the ultimate goal of finding a monster A gripping movie not for all but for those who like a good detective story that will hold your interest this is definitely a must see on a scale of one to ten.. 9
|
positive
|
In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****
|
negative
|
The only complaint I have about this adaptation is that it is sexed-up. Things that were only hinted at in the novel are shown on-screen for some weird reason. Did they think the audience would be too stupid to understand if they were not shown everything out-right? Other than that, this is very good-quality. All the actors do marvelous jobs bringing their characters to life. For the shallow women out there, it's worth watching at least because Toby Stephens as Gilbert is the sexiest thing ever. If I were Helen I would have conveniently forgotten I was still married the minute I laid eyes on him...<br /><br />Sort of a spoiler- The ending scene is a funny reversal of what happened in the book.
|
positive
|
One of the reviewers here wrote: "Good acting, good special effects, great<br /><br />location. Even better ending. " All I can say is, "Ugh." This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the<br /><br />"Christian content" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the "preachy" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the<br /><br />screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get<br /><br />amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on "Survivor," but that show<br /><br />requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what<br /><br />Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the<br /><br />misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch "Christian" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's "Passion..." was. 2/10 stars.
|
negative
|
Maybe some people may consider this a slow movie. However, it's precisely this "slow burning" that allows it to profoundly affect the viewer. Like that marvelous first scene: first, we can hear the voices; then, we are allowed to see the characters; finally, the camera slowly pans back and to the side and we see another character, a young man who is just sitting there, apparently not even listening to the conversation or, at least, not really caring. The fact that this young man will be the leading role shows the movie's strategy: allowing the character to develop and be determined by the environment surrounding him but without remarking the points more than necessary. People come and go, flow in and out of his life. Although most of the movie follows him (and most of the supporting characters are only seen when close to him, defined according to the relationship maintained with him), we are induced to believe that we are being objective, so subtle is the director touch.
|
positive
|
Keep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual/love/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is "Man alive ! This film is bad !"
|
negative
|
I was not expecting the powerful filmmaking experience of "Girlfight". It's an Indie; low-budget, no big-name actors, freshman director. I had heard it was good, but not this good.<br /><br />Placed in a contemporary, ethnic, working-class Brooklyn, Karyn Kusama has done an extraordinary job of capturing the day-do-day struggles of urban Latinos. Diana, the protagonist, is seething with anger and lashes out at her high school peers, getting in trouble with the school and her friends. She is being raised by her single father, who appears to love her and her brother, but applies a strict, sex-based double standard on his children. The father's double standard is illustrated by the fact that Tiny, the brother, is taking boxing lessons at the local gym, but Diana is denied similar pursuits. On an errand to the gym to meet Tiny, Diana is captivated by boxing. Tiny doesn't like boxing, so he and Diana trade places; he gets the money from Dad then gives it to Diana to take the lessons in his place.<br /><br />This is actually a feel-good movie, as Diana grows and learns about herself through boxing, meets a guy, and addresses some very serious issues head-on. There's no giggly, 'everything that can go right does go right' resolution a la "Bend It Like Beckham". The reality and attendant personal issues are too big for pat resolutions, but in my opinion, "Girlfight" is a better and more satisfying film for it.
|
positive
|
The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.<br /><br />Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.<br /><br />The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.<br /><br />To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.
|
negative
|
Two city guys are driving through Hicksville USA when a rusty monster truck suddenly appears and repeatedly attempts to run them off the road.Having picked up a mysterious blonde hitchhiker,they pull up at a truck-stop full of redneck amputees,one of whom warns them of 'the demon out there'. But they don't listen.Big mistake!"Monster Man" by Michael Davis mixes comedy with horror surprisingly well.The film borrows heavily from "Duel","The Blair Witch Project","Jeepers Creepers" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".The story is pretty silly,but there is enough gore and violence to keep splatter freaks happy.I enjoyed especially the performance of Justin Urich,which offers the film its comedy relief.Still the complete lack of suspense is hard to forgive.Give this one a chance,if you have some time to waste.7 out of 10.Did I mention that Aimee Brooks is sexy?
|
positive
|
Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say "Ro-DAY-oh"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great "Duck Soup" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.<br /><br />The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.<br /><br />My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion. <br /><br />Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.
|
negative
|
OMG this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot I'm a Film student. I don't understand why Angelina Jolie would be in this movie? Did she need the money that badly? I love AJ and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. It was SOO bad! not even good bad, just bad bad. It had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. I cant even say AJ looked good in it because well she didn't. The plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet then its not. All round disappointing. Maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise I really don't recommend it.
|
negative
|
Watching this little movie is a sheer delight from start to finish. The story is always entertaining, the tension never loosing up. The whole cast is wonderful. The teaming of Walken and Bracco works to perfection, it is almost like an echo of a classic screwball romance. Bracco is very sexy and really funny as the scam artist who fights for her independence. For some reason they gave Walken a very strange make up and the weirdest haircut I can imagine it's sort of a parody of the one Burt Lancaster had in Elmer Gantry. For me it added to the pleasure. It's the first movie I saw Miguel Ferrer in, probably one of the most under-appreciated movie actors of his generation. He's very good in a small role as Bracco's pimp. Even the Jamaican thugs are a sight to behold. I can highly recommend this movie.
|
positive
|
The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land? <br /><br />Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre.
|
positive
|
With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.
|
negative
|
I have not yet decided whether this will replace Anaconda as "The Worst Film I Have Ever Seen".<br /><br />Even if you ignore the dodgy accents, low production values and appalling camera work this film has absolutely nothing going for it. I only went to see it as I had read the book and wanted to see how they would work the complicated plot into a 2 hour film.<br /><br />The simple answer is - they didn't. Characters appear with little to no explanation as to who they are and then proceed to play no valuable part in the narrative. Even the main characters act without reason so that by the time the film reaches it's climax you don't care what happens to any of them.<br /><br />I can accept that books occasionally need to be rewritten to fit into films and that it is perhaps unfair to judge this film against the book it was adapted from. But after my friends and I came out of the cinema I had to spend most of the journey home explaining what was supposed to have happened.<br /><br />They even change the true meaning of the books title "Rancid Aluminium" by squeezing it into yet another piece of pointless voice over just so they can allow the film to have a cool title.<br /><br />A real mess of a film from start to finish.
|
negative
|
I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!!
|
negative
|
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The Avengers held this dubious honor
but no longer. The acting in "Jill the Ripper" is terrible and was only eclipsed by the plot. This movie is as intellectually stimulating as the Telletubbes. It doesn't know whether it wants to be an S&M flick or a really bad thriller. Only watch under extreme intoxication or if you're bed ridden and need a leather clad distraction. This script should be reworked into a porn, it wouldn't take very much effort and would have a longer shelf life. A porn, even a bad porn, wouldn't do the damage to Dolf Lundgren's career the way that this movie has.
|
negative
|
You know that feeling of hilarity you get when you watch a film that's trying so hard to be a serious, thought provoking piece of cinema and fails miserably? When you can't help but bust out laughing at the sheer terrible nature of the trash littering your screen? "House of the Dead" struggles to achieve even this low graded level of cinema.<br /><br />From start to end "House of the Dead" manages to recreate the feeling like you've just woken up to find out that the cat has laid it's curled business neatly on your forehead while you slept. It is clear from the start that the female actors have been cast for their cleavage size (which they exploit shamelessly) whereas the males for their hardcore "kick-ass" attitude. I honestly did not care any of the characters for any moment of the film and found myself actually wishing their demise so as to spare me a good hour of this torture. Uwe Boll should have considered screening two hours of footage from the actual game as a movie. At least then we'll get better acting
However not all blame can be placed on the actors as it is certainly a challenge to produce a convincing film when faced with the script of this film. It is arguably the worst section of the film and actually contains such lines as: "These are zombies, pure and simple" and "No cap'n, we must not go there! It's evil!".<br /><br />We all know that Zombie movies are never going to be particularly thought provoking or full of meaning; at best they are a harmless two hours of action, blood and closet terror. Trash, yes, but entertaining trash. Not the kind of trash which bursts out of your bin bag as you haul it across the room and smothers your shoes in sour milk cartons and decaying banana skins. According to IMDb, "House of the Dead" received such bad reviews that no Danish cinemas bought the movie. If only we could have had the same privilege.<br /><br />Final Score: 1/10.
|
negative
|
Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!
|
negative
|
Strange but acceptable mob comedy that has an undercover FBI agent (Matthew Modine) flirting with a mobster's concerned widow (Michelle Pfeffier) to tie two murders on a elusive mob boss (Dean Stockwell).<br /><br />The movie shows that it doesn't have to go over the top just to be funny and director Jonathan Demme ("The Silence of the Lambs", "Philadelphia") keeps the movie from looking like it being was restrained. That's good and it avoids being predictiable, too.
|
positive
|
I saw this movie a few years ago, and man I never want to golf again. I mean ninjas apparently have no respect for the game of golf or the way it has evolved. And I'm not talking about "victimless" stuff like forging a scorecard. No no- Based on what I've seen here, they shamelessly massacre policemen and golfers alike on hallowed country club grounds. Judge Smailes would be spinning in his grave. And do they repent for said sins? No no, based on what I have seen here, the typical response by a slain ninja is to take over the body of a buxom female telephone repairwoman and seek revenge. I find this morally reprehensible, and needless to say, after viewing this nonsense, I not only stopped golfing and talking on the telephone, but also decided to stop feeding the homeless.
|
negative
|
I was interested in the title and description of Big Rig while attending the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, TX. However, I was eager to get the heck out of the seats as soon as Big Rig ended. Big Rig is comprised of several "big rig" drivers who set out to deliver goods driven across the United States. The characters are all wonderful people, however the filmmakers never dug deep into the complexity of them as people. Instead, the story meanders as much as the maps in the film are meant to guide, but never do. At most, we get lost. We - the audience - end up going nowhere and, like the direction of the storytelling, end up somewhere but without direction, location, or plot. Why are we here? Where are we? How did we get here? The storytelling is sloppy and the directors' intent on "humanizing" a group of people who they regard as "overlooked" and "invisible" comes across as unconsciously and irritatingly condescending. The problem here here lies in the perspective of the directors instead of the truck drivers. The directors bring their own naive assumptions about truckers forward and then simply edit the film to confirm those assumptions. Overall, the story lacks any tension, the film is entirely too long (should have been a 15 min sketch), the big question of "So what" is never answered, and the entire film is one piece of see-through propaganda that does nothing to further "enlighten" (as the directors claim) the outside world about big riggers.
|
negative
|
Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.<br /><br />If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.<br /><br />Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.<br /><br />Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their natureor, William Golding might say, human naturebegin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.<br /><br />The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.<br /><br />The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the otherscruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.