review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.<br /><br />I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!
|
positive
|
The very first time I heard of Latter Days was when I was renting DVD's and I was interested as I am a member of the LDS Church. I found this movie very heartfelt and in several areas it made me cry. The reason for this is that too many years ago I knew a young man who went through what Aaron (played by Steve Sandvoss)does in Latter Days, but unlike Aaron this dear young man did not survive the ordeal. He ended up taking is life after his church, his friends, and his family disowned him because he was gay. There have been many people who do not think that the things that are shown in the movie really happen in this day and age, but the sorry and sad thing is they do. For those of you out their who are gay and young you need to see this movie and if you are a gay Mormon you really need to see this movie. Plus if you get the DVD there is help for you listed in the DVD. Teenage suicide in the gay world is very disturbing and this movie touches it but that part is hidden to a degree. The acting and the music is excellent. This movie sold out every movie house that it showed but it only showed in major cities and had a very limited release, so for those who would like to see this movie I would recommend the DVD release. The only people that I know who did not like the movie are members of my own church and they did not see the movie because of the subject matter gays and the LDS Church. See the movie, experience the story, and feel the emotions that are showcased in this movie you I feel will not be disappointed.
|
positive
|
So Dark The Night poses a tough challenge: It's very hard to write about it in any detail without ruining it for those who haven't yet seen it. Since it remains quite obscure, that includes just about everybody. The movie will strike those familiar with its director Joseph H. Lewis' better known titles in the noir cycle Gun Crazy, The Big Combo, even My Name Is Julia Ross, which in its brevity it resembles as an odd choice.<br /><br />For starters, the bucolic French countryside serves as its setting. Steven Geray, a middle-aged detective with the Surété in Paris, sets out for a vacation in the village of Ste. Margot (or maybe Margaux). Quite unexpectedly, he finds himself falling in love with the inkeepers' daughter (Micheline Cheirel), even though she's betrothed to a rough-hewn local farmer. But the siren song of life in Paris is hard to resist, so she agrees to marry him, despite the disparity in their ages, which inevitably becomes the talk of the town. <br /><br />But on the night of their engagement party, she fails to return to the inn. Soon, a hunchback finds her body by the river. Her jealous, jilted lover is the logical suspect, but he, too, is found dead. Then anonymous notes threaten more deaths, which come to pass. For the first time in his career, the bereaved Geray finds himself stumped....<br /><br />A particularly weak script all but does the movie in; it plays like bad Cornell Woolrich crossed with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. But Lewis does this creaky vehicle proud. He takes his time near the beginning, but then the story and the storytelling gain momentum (alas, just about the time the script breaks an axle). Burnett Guffey lighted and photographed the film, with an intriguing leitmotif of peering out of and peeping into windows; there's also an effective score by Hugo Friedhofer, who supplied aural menace to many noirs. A good deal of talent has been lavished on So Dark The Night, but at the end it boils down to not much more than a gimmick and not a very good gimmick at that. It's a one-trick pony of a movie.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
Say what you will about schmaltz. One beauty of this film is that it is not pro-American. It is a morality about some Americans being called to high purpose and how they rose to the occasion. It is inspiring because it is about people of noble purpose.<br /><br />To me, the most interesting part of the film is the education of Fanny and David Farrelly (Bette Davis' mother and brother). As Fanny says, "We've been shaken out of the magnolias."<br /><br />In today's political climate where, led by a president who shamelessly lied to us and used 9/11 to bring out the absolute worst characteristics of human beings, we sunk to the level of the 9/11 murderers to seek blood-thirsty vengeance. It can't all be blamed on Mr. Bush - after all, we allowed him to lead us in that direction and even re-elected him after his lies had been exposed. Now, with complete justification, we Americans are reviled throughout the world.<br /><br />Today, we watch this film with a new awareness: That the rise to power of Nazis in Germany was not due to a flaw in the German character, but, a flaw in human beings that allows us to rationalize anything that will justify our committing immoral and heinous acts. I'm not comparing George Bush to Adolph Hitler. But, I am pointing out how a leader can whip us up into a frenzy of terror, hatred, and hyper-nationalism to do despicable things.<br /><br />Sadly, the blackmailer, who will do whatever needs to be done for his own agrandizement, no matter how immoral, is most like the leaders of our country, those who support them, and those who have buried their heads so deep in the sand, that they can't even be bothered to vote.<br /><br />A film like Watch on the Rhine reminds us of what we once aspired to be - a force for the betterment of humanity - and that we have it in us to once again aspire to lofty goals.<br /><br />Geoff
|
positive
|
Any Batman fan will know just how great the films are, they've been a major success. Batman Returns however is by far the best film in the series. A combination of excellent directing, brilliant acting and settings makes this worthy of watching on a night in.<br /><br />Tim Burton, who directed this movie, has specifically made sure that this film gives a realistic atmosphere and he's done a great job. Danny Devito (Penguin man) is a man who has inherited penguin characteristics as a baby, and grown up to become a hideous and ugly...thing! Michelle Pfiffer plays the sleek and very seducing 'Catwoman' after cats had given her there genes from being bitten. The result in both the character changes is excellent and both Catwoman and Penguin man play a very important role in this excellent film. The mysterious Catwoman is great fun to watch - her classic sayings and a funny part in which skips with her whip in a jewelry shop adds such fun to the film. Danny Devito also does well, his ability to impersonate some strange creature was vital, and he adds a great atmosphere to the film that takes us back to the dull sewers where he lives.<br /><br />You can't forget Batman though. Micheal Keaton once again pulls of a comfortable performance, and shows us a different side to Batman. His affection is let loose when he confronts Catwoman at the end of the film, and his meetings with her when she's a normal person, Selina Kyle, result in him being seduced badly in his own home. There's a clever part after this when they leave, and the film is full of great scenes. Its worth noting that Bruce Wayne's Bat mobile is not used as much as in the other Batman films, as close combat and story telling scenes make up this film.<br /><br />The winter setting is created perfectly in Gotham City with most of the scenes being set at night, and with the town being filled with snow. Therefore, if you watch this film during the summer like I have, it doesn't feel the same. Best watch it during the winter.<br /><br />Overall, its an amazing movie. All the credit goes to Tom Burton and the cast, they've done an incredible job.
|
positive
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** It's easy to see why the script for this film won an Oscar. At least during the first half. My head was spinning from all of the snappy lines whizzing by. Noel Coward plays a New York publisher (`Why don't you publish books that you like?' - `What? And corrupt the public?') who charms and manipulates his many hangers-on. Then he dies in a plane crash and the story turns into a bizarre Flying Dutchman take-off in which Coward must find someone who truly mourns him before his soul can rest in peace. Very enjoyable until it gets bizarre. Viewed at Cinefest in Syracuse in March 2003.
|
positive
|
Have you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his "comedic" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, "been there, done that" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.
|
negative
|
There's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon...
|
negative
|
ELEPHANT WALK may not be the acme of literature or of film, but it is great entertainment in the quasi-melodramatic mode. It is the story of love, both genuine and illicit, as well as overweening ambition, devotion, and the arrogance of personal tyranny. A previous reviewer, John Mankin, questions why the central focus of the film, the mansion called Elephant Walk, should have been built by the former owner, the "governor" the late Tom Wiley, right across the elephants' traditional path to the major source of water, the river. To miss this point is to essentially miss the point of the whole center of the film: the hubris of man. That his son, played by Peter Finch, should become enthralled by the super image and enigma of his revered father, is not unexpected, since the son was without a mother growing up in a foreign jungle with only his father and his father's rowdy 'boys' club' as his role models. The point of the father was that he was a self-made man who would tame nature to his liking, and that liking was not just a tea plantation upon the lands the elephants once dominated, but also that he would dominate even the large bull elephant that led the herd, and thus he would dominate his son and all around him, and so we join the tale after the elephants have been denied the crucial dry season access to their pathway to water. Who could know that this dry season would last so long and what the elephants would do in desperation to get water? This is the nexus of the film: what will animals do to get water; what will humans do to get power or love? Ceylon, today's Sri Lanka, is the huge island off the coast of India where the plantation is located and one quickly learns that it is the real scenery of the story, not just the expenses of Miss Taylor. Were it not for this exotic location (much of the film was shot in Ceylon), and the magnificent "bungalow" this would have been just another potboiler. One must recognize the atmosphere created here as integral to the time and place, as it illuminates the latter day wealth and power attained by the English immigrant 'conquerors' that were part and parcel of the British raj. It is only such wealth gained by the use of virtual slave labor that one could build so magnificent a residence of ebony, teak, and marble. Not to be overlooked are the wonderfully carved Jalees (grille work window and doorway borders) evidently specified by art directors J. McMillan Johnson and Hal Pereira and obviously made by the cheaper labor on the island. Such craftsmanship reveals the careful attention to detail that these men sought.<br /><br />For those immune to the blandishments of time, place, and architecture, there is always the allure of Miss Taylor, as she marries a man she doesn't really know and is tacitly wooed by a another man, against the background described, and under the overarching tyranny of the legacy of a man deceased. As I said, it is not great literature nor even great film, but it is great spectacle long before that term was debased by the special effects extravaganzas of today.<br /><br />This is one of those films made to be seen on the giant screen of an outdoor drive-in, not on the home TV, so arrange the largest screen to see it on to fully appreciate its fine camera-work and scope.
|
positive
|
I think that the basic idea of any movie is to entertain or to inform. If you want information you are looking at true life movies and historical movies. Sometimes these are one of the same. The other side of the coin is to entertain. Did Hitch entertain me? Yes it did. Okay the formula is standard. Boy meets girl or in this case boys met girls. They get together have a falling out then get back together. However the way it happened in this movie was refreshing. I particularly liked the bar scene with Hitch and Sara. The Allegra Albert romance was a delight to watch unfold, most REAL men are shy when it comes to wooing the woman of their dreams and had I had Hitch's advice I would probably have got my wife up the altar in half the time.I read the first comment on this film that appeared to suggest that this movie was played safely and good have had a few more laughs. I tend to disagree there are so many laughs you can pack into a romantic comedy without turning it into a farce. Besides relationships have there serious moments. All in all I found Hitch quite entertaining, the actors did a good job (I will be looking out for them in other movies) and Hitch is a film that I am very happy to have in my DVD collection.
|
positive
|
First of all, even IMDb is slacking with this movie, as the list of cast is VERY "gappy". Even main characters are missing from it like Buddy for example.<br /><br />Now back to the movie. I love watching movies, but this one tortured me throughout the whole 82 or however many minutes. It was HORRID. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And the reason why it bothers me so much, is because I was quite excited about seeing it beforehand.<br /><br />The plot line itself is good. It could have been a great film if done properly and with careful casting. Golden Brooks was a HUGE disappointment. I now see that the only role she can be good in is the loud, fun-loving, energetic sexy chick she plays on Girlfriends. Melodramatic roles are not for her at all. She basically killed her character, Rachel.<br /><br />I love some of the cast, like Deborah Cox, Mel Jackson and Darrin Dewitt Henson, but even they couldn't save this catastrophic movie. Of course it is only my personal opinion that I can not stand Hill Harper as a man, and he didn't help me get to like him more here either.<br /><br />Golden Brooks' voice bothered me so much that I actually had to force myself to finish watching the movie. It seemed like she whispered throughout the whole joint. The director I won't even waste board-space on, he did such a bad job. The editing, photography/camera focus and just about everything about this movie was SAD. Not to mention the dialogs! Absolutely unreal and many times straight hilarious (when it was supposed to make you cry and search deep within yourself). <br /><br />As I said, it could have been a very nice movie, but it was seriously messed up. I would NOT recommend it to anyone, unless they are cinematography major and want to see a 'What not to do' example for their future work.<br /><br />Have a great day, Everyone!!!
|
negative
|
All I can say about the Necromaniac/Schizophreniac 2 series is... if you are even remotely "PC" or don't have a seriously messed up sense of humor, then you probably wont get it. As sick and disgusting as this movie is, it really is a comedy and not a "horror" movie at all. If you can appreciate somebody who pushes the bounds of good taste and political correctness to the most extreme limits imaginable, to the point where is becomes so out of hand that it's comical, then you must see this to believe it. This movie is so out of control that a major film studio couldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole (with a condom on the end). In my opinion though, the best, most extreme pieces of art come from way underground. If you don't stick to the same old formula that people are used to seeing, then they reject it.<br /><br />I have seen stacks of terrible, boring, z-grade, Indy movies that were just a waste of a perfectly good VHS tape or DVD-R. I have also seen stacks of stink bombs coming from the big named studios that were a complete waste of millions of dollars. When a NO BUDGET film like these two from Ron Atkins/John Giancaspro come out and blow all of the other "shock" films completely out of the water, you really have to take a second look at the whole Indy movie scene. After seeing this, you can really see how much freedom an Indy film maker can have when they work on their own.<br /><br />The funny thing is, even the other people who saw this movie and "hated it" admit to the fact that they laughed all the way through it. I don't think that is is possible for anybody to get bored watching either of these two. So if don't take everything that you seen in the mainstream media too seriously, and are able to laugh at a misanthropic, puppet wielding psychopath who has finally snapped, YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS. You may just be able to see it for the stand alone, cult classic that it is. Both Schizophreniac / Schizophreniac 2 are among the favorites in my collection of well over 1000 dvds.
|
positive
|
<br /><br />Arriving by boxcar in New York City, the shrewd young woman with the BABY FACE begins to methodically canoodle her way to the top floors of power in a great bank.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck is fascinating as the amoral heroine of this influential pre-Code drama. Without a shred of decency or regret, she coolly manipulates the removal or destruction of the men unlucky enough to find themselves in her way. A wonderful actress, Stanwyck has full opportunity here to display her ample talents.<br /><br />Appearing quite late in the story, George Brent is a welcome addition as the one fellow possibly able to handle Stanwyck; his sophisticated style of acting makes a nice counterpoint to her icy demeanor. Douglas Dumbrille, Donald Cook & Henry Kolker portray a succession of her unfortunate victims.<br /><br />John Wayne appears for just a few scant seconds as an unsuccessful suitor for Stanwyck's affections. This would be the only time these two performers appeared together on screen.<br /><br />Movie mavens should recognize Nat Pendleton as a speakeasy customer, and Charles Sellon & Edward Van Sloan as bank executives - all unbilled.<br /><br />The music heard on the soundtrack throughout the film, perfectly punctuating the plot, is Baby Face' (1926) by Benny Davis & Harry Akst and St. Louis Blues' (1914) by W.C. Handy.<br /><br />BABY FACE is a prime example of pre-Code naughtiness. In its frank & unapologetic dealing with sex, it is precisely the kind of film which the implementation of the Production Code in 1934 was meant to eliminate.
|
positive
|
Australia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.<br /><br />In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.<br /><br />Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.<br /><br />Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded
14 years after shooting shut down.<br /><br />Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues
long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.<br /><br />It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.
|
positive
|
Mickey Rourke is enjoying a renaissance at the moment... and fair play to him. I always liked his image and his acting ability in such fare as Angel Heart and Johnny Handsome. You know what you are going to get with Rourke - mean, moody, dirty. But this film gives you much more - and you don't want most of it.<br /><br />First and foremost - this whole thing just doesn't make sense. Rourke is a hardened IRA killer who after killing a bus-load of schoolchildren flees Ireland for London. He is on the run from the cops and from his own Army comrades. He has also vowed to never kill again. It looks like the bus full of kids finally did it for him.<br /><br />However, when he gets to London he is tracked down by a local mobster (Bates - looking like his eyebrows and hair came straight off a Burton's dummy) to kill his main competitor in turn for £50,000 and a boat trip to the US. Rourke reluctantly agrees to do it but is seen by a priest (Hoskins) and confesses the crime to him in the confessional in order to keep the priest's mouth shut. He figures it is better than killing him.<br /><br />A wealth of things arise here which just don't add up : <br /><br />1. Why pick Rourke to off your competition? As is illustrated by a scene whereby an employee is pinned to a wall by a couple of heavies with what look like awls - these London guys are tough enough anyway to do their own killing.<br /><br />2. Not only that but the Mobster gets a guy to follow Rourke and witness the killing with his own eyes. Why didn't that guy simply kill the competitor and save all the hassle of dealing with Rourke? <br /><br />3.Hoskins sees the murder take place and the police let him go off - without protection, I may add - to take confession? No way.<br /><br />4. Rourke hangs around the church (right next to where he carried out the murder ) immediately after the crime takes place to go to confession. Why aren't the cops checking the place out? <br /><br />5. Rourke hangs around the church and Hoskin's blind niece in particular, for days afterward without anybody bothering him. What? He's on the run and he stays put by the very place where he committed another murder? Stupid.<br /><br />6. The cops actually meet Rourke in the church "fixing" the organ and have no idea who he is. Do they not know he is on the run for the school bus bombing? They don't even check up on him? <br /><br />7. Why get Rourke to kill for you, and then tell him to wait around for a few days to get on the boat? You'd think you'd want to get rid of him immediately. Or kill him. One or the other? <br /><br />8. Why does Bates' brother suddenly decide to rape the blind niece in the midst of all the waiting? Could he not restrain himself for a few days? At least until Rourke has been safely offed to the States? Ridiculous.<br /><br />9. Rourke suddenly has inner turmoil after all his years of killing and wins over the blind niece immediately - even after she knows he is a killer, she still loves him? Again - utterly ludicrous. And besides - she falls in "love" with him in record time - a few days !!!! <br /><br />10. The whole bomb thing at the end is just plain silly from Bates' point of view.<br /><br />11. Things happen in parts of this film that just do not make sense or are simply in there to help the storyline (and I say that in jest) along. Bates' houses Rourke in a whorehouse until the boat is ready to sail and Rourke suddenly displays a moral high ground to respect the whore in the house - but yet will bed a blind girl.<br /><br />12. Rourke asks a henchman on the boat where Bates is - and the henchman practically spurts out the entire movements of his boss in less than 10 seconds. It was embarrassing - the guy was telling Rourke far more than he even asked.<br /><br />13. Hoskin's priest is an ex-army guy and we see him beat up three henchmen behind a pub. Totally uncalled-for and yet another cringe-worthy scene.<br /><br />I'm gonna stop there at unlucky 13 without mentioning Rourke's hair (so falsely red it is laughable), his accent (which to be fair is not too bad sometimes but deteriorates to a barely heard mumble at other times), his clothes, walk, looks to the heavens etc. Nor will I mention the music and the choppy editing style.<br /><br />Oooppps - I have just mentioned them.<br /><br />Overall - a disaster of a film with some obvious religious imagery thrown in (Rourke on the cross, preaching from a pulpit) which would embarrass a first year film student never mind a top star and director.<br /><br />4/10.
|
negative
|
At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.<br /><br />I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
Anthony Quinn was a legend of 20th century in cinema by his great roles obtained this movie about a policeman innovated a false guilt for Toni to rape his beauty wife (Lisi) but he failed in this trap because he faced the strength of Lisi but he succeeded in his trap which was prepared by him for Toni that he put his name in the list of Jewish people in Romania and he transported from country to another in east Europe.<br /><br />This movie was directed in 1967 at the time of Arab -Isreeli war in 1967 (Six days war) as an evidence of harmful works from Jewish people which were caused by Jewish people not only in Europe but also in the rest continents.<br /><br />Jewish people were a great cause of French revolution in 1789 , the Pelchfik revolution in Russia 1917, the Turmoil of different countries in any time.<br /><br />Pearl Buck wrote a novel (Peony) in 1948 at the time of occupied Palasteine in 1948 about Chinese Jewish people and their problems they faced in China because of their bad instruments they used in these countries as keys of crisis.
|
positive
|
I saw this superb documentary at the Santa Barbara Int'l Film Festival. It is extremely absorbing and very well crafted, drawing you into the life and career of Harry Nilsson, one of the most overlooked musical talents of the 1960's and 70's. While I was familiar with his better known compositions ("One is the Loneliest Number", "Without You"), I learned about this man's brilliant writing and beautiful singing. If you love music, you'll find plenty to draw you in to his world, which unfortunately spiraled out of control as his success increased and his past haunted him. However sad, he nonetheless was completely devoted to his family and you will find yourself so glad to have met this man. The profile is effectively told through Nilsson's own words and those of his friends and colleagues (a virtual Who's Who of Rock)who loved and respected him. Don't miss this!
|
positive
|
Every now and then there gets released this movie no one has ever heard of and got shot in a very short time with very little money and resource but everybody goes crazy about and turns out to be a surprisingly great one. This also happened in the '50's with quite a few little movies, that not a lot of people have ever heard of. There are really some unknown great surprising little jewels from the '50's that are worth digging out. "Panic in the Streets" is another movie like that that springs to the mind. Both are movies that aren't really like the usual genre flicks from their time and are also made with limited resources.<br /><br />I was really surprised at how much I ended up liking this movie. It was truly a movie that got better and better as it progressed. Like all 'old' movies it tends to begin sort of slow but once you get into the story and it's characters you're in for a real treat with this movie.<br /><br />The movie has a really great story that involves espionage, though the movie doesn't start of like that. It begins as this typical crime-thriller with a touch of film-noir to it. But "Pickup on South Street" just isn't really a movie by the numbers so it starts to take its own directions pretty soon on. It ensures that the movie remains a surprising but above all also really refreshing one to watch.<br /><br />I also really liked the characters within this movie. None of them are really good guys and they all of their flaws and weaknesses. Really humane. It also especially features a great performance from Thelma Ritter, who even received a well deserved Oscar nomination for. It has really got to be one of the greatest female roles I have ever seen.<br /><br />Even despite its somewhat obvious low budget this is simply one great, original, special little movie that deserves to be seen by more!<br /><br />10/10
|
positive
|
Wow. I thought this might be insipid but it was even worse than I imagined! Sometimes I like to watch a good "car-crash" movie: those that are so bad that you can't look away because you want to see how bad they can possibly get. This is really the only reason I could leave the television on - morbid fascination. It wasn't so much the acting, which was only mediocre or slightly worse than one would expect from this cast, but the premise and the plot which never should have seen the light of day. The script, too, is groan-inducing. As for cinematography, did anyone else notice that they used a "curtains drawing" segue device, like in an old 50's TV show...but without irony? At first I thought they must be kidding but the movie takes itself too seriously to have used this in a tongue-in-cheek manner. Don't even ask me about the score...the only high point is the final song, by Morcheeba. I guess they wanted to leave people with something for their $8...glad I saw it on TV!!!!! Just silly! I wonder if this is why Timothy Hutton has had trouble finding much work recently? I guess if you don't expect much, and want to watch a mindless thriller, it would be better than spending an evening clipping your toenails, which is why it merits a 2.
|
negative
|
This movie started with some promise: big name cast, good looking sets, but then it fell apart.<br /><br />Most of the time it can't tell whether it's a serious movie or a comedy. One minute they're talking about how there's no joy in killing and the next there is a fight scene set to funny music and funny banter.<br /><br />Some of the acting is pretty bad, mainly from Patrick Swayze and Piper Perabo. She also gets some groaner lines like, "When I marry, it will be about love." Ugh.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is that it's just boring. Not enough action, not enough humor, not enough plot, not much of anything really. Just a lot of clichés and cheesy moments.<br /><br />Also, a movie with "Dragon" in the title should contain a lot more dragons than the few (and pathetic CGI dragons) that appeared in this movie.<br /><br />Can't the SciFi channel show *any* good movies?
|
negative
|
I debated as to whether or not I should tick the spoiler box. Since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of Scrubs it probably doesn't come under the category of a spoiler.<br /><br />Clip shows. Grrr. We all knew Friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows...and five and a half years into Scrubs they've gone and fallen down that hole.<br /><br />I have to wonder if the writers just couldn't be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves "let's show the other funny stuff." It didn't work.<br /><br />For starters, showing all the times that people have fallen down isn't funny when taken out of context. It's not funny to see Todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know WHY he was dangling by his banana hammock.<br /><br />Second, for what was supposed to be a compilation of JD's fantasies, one was Turk's dream, another also wasn't his fantasy, although I forget which.<br /><br />And that's the problem. This episode is totally forgettable. We've seen all these things before. And the collection of clips of people dancing? Why? That's not funny.<br /><br />Finally, I must admit two of my favourite Scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation...Dr. Cox realising that Ben died...and JD telling him how proud of him he is.<br /><br />But even seeing those moments again didn't save the episode. The summary says it all.<br /><br />Worst episode ever. Bill Lawrence, PLEASE don't let your show go the same way as Friends, keep it fresh, keep it funny...or wrap it up.
|
negative
|
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-
|
negative
|
"The Godfather", "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars", "Goodfellas" None of the above compare to the complex brilliance of "The Sopranos". Each and every character has layers upon layers of absolute verity, completely and utterly three dimensional. We care about Tony Soprano wholeheartedly, despite the fact that in the simplest model of good vs. evil, he is evil. Soprano is the most provocative, intricate, and fascinating protagonist ever created to this point in history. If you're in the mood to be overtly challenged as a viewer, and to be forever altered on your feelings toward entertainment, watch "The Sopranos". I defy anybody to sit down and watch the very first episode of Season 1, and not want to continue with the series. Each season is completely brilliant in its own way. DVDs are essential to anybody's collection **** of out 4
|
positive
|
Ever since I started visiting this site, and voting for movies, I have never given any movie a rating of 1. Even the disturbing "Dance! Workout with Barbie" got a 2. There is a reason for this.<br /><br />Any time I find myself watching what I think is a really bad movie, I have to stop and ask myself the following question: "Is this movie really as bad as the horrific soul-sucking beast that is 'Theodore Rex'?" And I've never been able to answer "yes".<br /><br />I would give anything within reason to know what crackhead said "Hey! Let's remake 'Blade Runner' with Barney in the Harrison Ford Role!" and decided it was a good idea to actually spend the time and money to commit it to film. Furthermore, I want to know what the hell kind of market they were going to sell this towards if it hadn't gone strait to video. This is that rare monster: a movie that is way too violent for kids and way too insanely stupid for adults. I'd ask "what were they THINKING?" but in this case, it might actually be redundant.<br /><br />Anyhow, all you need to know is that you should only expose yourself to this monstrosity if you're one of the five or six rabid fans of "Howard the Duck", or if you are curious to see the most Evil Insane movie of all time, or you want to REALLY punish yourself.
|
negative
|
It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.<br /><br />Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.<br /><br />I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.<br /><br />It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.
|
negative
|
i was like watching it right and i was all like oh this is so totally awesome-full and then i was all like ya quite good indeed so i really enjoyed all the amazing dangers and all the British people and i think that the doctor is very a good doctor in his way of doing such wonderful doctor-y things and he was a very strange man and i was like maybe i won't like this guy because hes a new doctor and i like the old doctor thats not this guy but then i watched him and i was like oh this is awesome and i liked it so then i watched and enjoyed the great evil enemies and the great conquering of the evil guys and the happy doctor who is quite scary and happy looking
|
positive
|
The Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of "Hollywood conventions". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a "Hollywood cliché". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the "Hollywood convention" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.
|
negative
|
In the movie, "The Falcon and the Snowman", when they were showing Christopher Boyce around the complex, the satellite in the background was the actual Ryholite satellite that is now in space. TRW allowed interior shots. TRW also allowed both interior and exterior shots for one of the original Star Trek TV series. (The episode is the one where Spock goes blind when a string of satellite lights are activated to kill the aliens). Christopher escaped jail (Lompock) and was featured on America's Most Wanted. He was drinking in a bar when the show aired. He said, "Hey, that's me". Needless to say, he was captured and transfered to a maximum security jail.
|
positive
|
This movie is a bad memory from my childhood. This is one of those movies that they show kids on a rainy day at school when you can't go out for recess, and you'd rather be watching anything, ANYTHING else. At least that's what it was like when I was in elementary school. I just remember HATING this movie. Granted, I haven't seen it in 15 years or so, and they probably don't use it on rainy days anymore but I just want to warn everyone: You'd be better off using this to put your kids to sleep than entertaining them. Trust me, pick anything else. Even though the topic is kind of controversial, the plot is so tame and slow that I can't remember anything about it except that I disliked it so strongly that here, 15 years later, I felt the need to warn all of you against it.
|
negative
|
I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.<br /><br />I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.<br /><br />The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.<br /><br />The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.<br /><br />The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.<br /><br />Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.<br /><br />And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie.
|
negative
|
Oh dear. This movie could have been sub-titled "When writers go on strike!" What a stinker. I had really high hopes for this, mostly after reading IMDb reviews, which makes me wonder about the whole IMDb rating system, but that's a separate matter. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchorman, Bruce Almighty, The Office, etc so I was expecting great things. To say I was disappointed is the understatement of the year. There are so many things wrong with this movie, but I'll confine myself to (a) the implausibility of ANY family behaving like these people do (A mass aerobics workout? What planet is THAT real life on?), the clunky script (a murderer of love? Please), and the fact that the character of Dan is so unlikable, you find yourself wondering what the girl saw in him to make her fall in love with him? This movie was filled to bursting with clunky dialogue, creaking direction, ridiculous set-scenes and it was slow, slow, slow. We would have walked out after half an hour if we'd not been with my parents, who don't get out much and don't like to waste money. Unlike the makers of this movie, who would have been better off throwing all the cash spent making this movie into a bonfire - that would have been more entertaining. If you like movies, avoid this like the plague.
|
negative
|
This isn't a bad TV movie. Shtrafbat is short for Shtrafnoy Batallion, which means Penal Batallion. Such battallions were formed due to the increasing demand for soldiers as the Soviet Union was taking heavy casualties all through out the war. These battalions consisted of convicts and dishonored soldiers who were given the chance to clear their names by proving themselves in combat. They were looked down upon as scum and were expended easily during combat without much regret, or much honor, on the part of military. They were often sent on suicide missions and suffered extreme casualties. The ones who refused to fight were executed on sight. Needless to say, their lives sucked.<br /><br />There were some very nice performances by the cast, especially by Yuri Stepanov who played Antip, Aleksandr Bashirov who played Stirah, and Roman Madyanov who played Major Kharchenko. However the series isn't really that addictive, in part because it's too long, it could've a lot shorter and as effective.<br /><br />Although it's about war, Shtrafbat has very mild violence and pretty much no gore. It relies solely on the actors to make it work, and after all, it's a TV series, so the producers didn't want to scare off the viewers and the sponsors.<br /><br />Shtrafbat explores the cruelty of the Soviet regime, and explaines why so many men chose to fight the Nazis instead of joining them. Personally I'd rather be a Fascist then a Communist given the circumstances presented in the film. One character explains that the Soviets stripped his farm clean and his family died of starvation. Out of anger he burned it down which got him arrested for destroying Kolhoz property and he ended up in the penal battalion as a criminal. Antip reminisced on how his mother killed her youngest son to feed the rest of the family. Both men explained that they fought for their motherland, rather than the for the Soviets.<br /><br />The penal battalion had one Marine(Naval Infantry) who raped a girl, killing his comrade in the prosess, threatened his other comrade to keep his mouth shut about both ordeals, and then feigned injury when it came to fighting. On top of all that the girl committed suicide due to shame. I imagine if enough Marines watched this movie they'd pick up banners and riot on the streets calling for a boycott or an official apology from the producers.<br /><br />To say the least, I'd recommend it to anyone with the slightest interest in the former Soviet Union or World War II. I don't think I wasted 500+ minutes of my life.
|
positive
|
I went to see Antone Fisher not knowing what to expect and was most pleasantly surprised. The acting job by Derek Luke was outstanding and the story line was excellent. Of course Denzel Washington did his usual fine job of acting as well as directing. It makes you realized that people with mental problems CAN be helped and this movie is a perfect example of this. Don't miss this one.
|
positive
|
It's hard to work up any enthusiasm for this awful cartoon-like epic that for some reason has become a cult classic. It certainly can't be because of the totally artificial look of the set designs or the limpid acting of an all-star cast. These days it's shown much too frequently on Fox Movie Channel or AMC.<br /><br />It pains me to report that veteran actors like Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine are even cast in this muddled science fiction travesty, none of which rings true. It's like watching an expensive budget being spent on a Saturday afternoon kiddie show full of cardboard characters and unconvincing dialog. It's a comic book version of the Jules Verne novel.<br /><br />The maturing Fontaine was still attractive but wears a pained expression on her face, perhaps regretting that she had accepted the role of the psychiatrist before reading the script. She contributes absolutely nothing to her cardboard role but an imperial and uncomfortable presence and looks totally out of place most of the time. Faring no better are Robert Sterling, Barbara Eden and--most of all, Peter Lorre--as well as Frankie Avalon, who gets to sing the title tune which--it's safe to say--did not become anyone's favorite title tune.<br /><br />An awfully frustrating experience to sit through a film like this which wastes an attractive cast and is an insult to almost anyone's intelligence. Totally unconvincing from start to finish. The film, as well as the fantastic submarine, sinks to the bottom of the sea long before the fight with a rubber octopus brings the film to a dreary conclusion.
|
negative
|
2 WORDS: Academy Award. Nuff said. This film had everything in it. Comedy to make me laugh, Drama to make me cry and one of the greatest dance scenes to rival Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo. The acting was tip top of any independant film. Jeremy Earl was in top form long since seen since his stint on the Joan Cusack Show. His lines were executed with dynamite precision and snappy wit last seen in a very young Jimmy Walker. I thought I saw the next emergance of a young Denzel Washington when the line "My bus!! It's.... Gone" That was the true turning point of the movie. My Grandmother loved it sooo much that i bought her the DVD and recommended it to her friends. It will bring tears to your eyes and warmth to your heart as you see the white Tony Donato and African American Nathan Davis bond. Through thick( being held up at knife point) and thin( Nathan giving Tony tips on women) the new dynamic duo has arrived and are out to conquer Hollywood.
|
positive
|
Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.<br /><br />This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.
|
negative
|
This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.<br /><br />However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid.
|
negative
|
Has Al Pacino ever been in a bad movie? His name seems to be an imprimatur for top notch cinema. This is as good a performance as he's ever given. Pacino is an American Olivier. And this is a political thriller as good as they get. There are no good guys and no bad guys. But the system has its inexorable effect on the people who think they're running it. Not only is Pacino's performance compelling --- the eulogy at the dead child's funeral is awesomely powerful --- the film has a fast paced, gritty realism to it that enhances the fine performances without resorting to gimmicks. This outstanding portrait of big city politics also manages to provide two hours of superb movie watching without undue violence, overheated sex or gutter language. There is murder. There are bad people. But they come across effectively without crossing the line. A film like this restores my jaded faith in Hollywood. I don't award many tens. This one richly deserves it!
|
positive
|
Having recently purchased Universal's Marlene Dietrich DVD collection, I was somewhat reluctant to watch "Golden Earrings." The idea of a 40-something Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy in a war-time romance seemed unusual, and implausible. I should not have worried. With all the professional talent that went into these old movies, it's hard to miss, really. The movie was a joy to watch; it's a classic.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about the film was Dietrich, who pulls off the gypsy role perfectly. The makeup, lighting, photography, and her performance all add up to make a really startling and memorable character. I had never seen Dietrich play a "good" woman convincingly before--but she does here! She played a lot of heartless vamps in those great Sternberg films, so it is refreshing to see her in a more down to earth, relaxed role, playing an exotic but very human character.<br /><br />Overall, a very nice romance. The love story is believable, optimistic, and the happy ending is extremely satisfying.
|
positive
|
Intelligent, nail-biting drama came out of nowhere in 1979 and soon was on the cover of every newspaper in America (when life imitated the film). A nuclear power plant employee in Southern California is threatened by superiors when he decides to go public with the real story behind an accident at the plant. Ostensibly a stuck valve problem, a TV news-crew's film shows that it was an accident verging on disastrous proportions--and worse, that safety conditions are being scrubbed to save millions of dollars, a cover-up that endangers everyone's lives. The movie occasionally gets too technical (especially in the second-half) and could use more human interplay, however the performances by Jack Lemmon, Jane Fonda (as a puff-piece news-woman in the right place at the right time), and Michael Douglas (as a freelance cameraman) are superb. The throwaway bits involving nuclear protesters is both entirely accurate and bitterly satirical, and the news-biz (with its corporate structure and vapid yes-men) is vividly captured. ***1/2 from ****
|
positive
|
You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.
|
negative
|
This British documentary was recently shown on Comedy Central during their "Best of
" week and can also be seen on South Park's second season DVD. I remember seeing many commercials for the DVD showing clips of this documentary, most of which occurs with Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and some other guy in a hot tub. It was funny when I saw it in the commercials, but I was used to seeing it by the time I saw the actual documentary.<br /><br />Overall, "Goin' Down to South Park" is a fairly funny and interesting look at how South Park episodes are made and of the series' history going back to when Matt and Trey came up with the idea in college. However, there was something about the tone of this documentary that actually felt sort of depressing. It's not as fast-paced, rapid-fire, and as lively as the actual South Park episodes. Instead, it kind of has a slow, dry-wit style, which at times can be funny, but most of the time you're just waiting for something to happen. If you get the chance to watch it, by all means go for it, but I don't think you're really missing much if you never see it.<br /><br />My IMDb Rating: 7/10
|
positive
|
If you took all the stock elements of a Shrek movie (grumpy ogre, annoying donkey, cute kitty, obligatory dance number, etc.), put them in a blender and condensed it to 20 minutes, you'd have this mess. Painful to watch; I may have laughed once. The story and dialogue are rushed beyond comprehension, with the voice actors sounding like they phoned in their lines. The final reworked rendition of "The Christmas Story" poem felt like it was written by a committee in five minutes. And boy, a little Eddie Murphy goes a long way. With its desperate attempt to be hip and current, this show will be long outdated and forgotten while classics like "The Grinch
" will remain timeless. A sad waste of effort by all involved, a veritable "jumping of the shark" for the Shrek franchise.
|
negative
|
I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.
|
negative
|
I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!<br /><br />Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).<br /><br />The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)
not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature STAGE FRIGHT (1987) and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)...
|
negative
|
The film starts out with a narration of the protagonist explaining certain crimes occurring all over the city and then we get to know that the hero is a cop who is either suspended or has probably retired. I did not have the patience or the interest to verify the above before commenting. If there is a stereotype for narrators to have a deep, sleep-inducing voice then, it is high time to put an end to it. I seriously fell asleep and did not bother to shut the movie down either. Am still trying to figure out what the movie was all about and why there were no outdoor shootings. A third rate TV Serial will have more number of sets compared to this crap of a movie and I still pity the actors and producers involved in this huge bullshit of a movie. It ought to have been produced as a normal TV serial or maybe even as a local theater drama instead of putting it out on the big screen. Total waste of time and money. The movie was supposed to be in production for a long time and it would have been better to have left it that way.With redundant sleep inducing dialogs and sets, this is the worst movie I have come across.
|
negative
|
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
|
negative
|
there is only way to describe this movie.<br /><br />so bad its hilarious.<br /><br />the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.<br /><br />the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.<br /><br />in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.<br /><br />If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong<br /><br />THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU
|
negative
|
It's a shame this movie is rated PG 13--it is really quite suitable for anyone--though young kids might not follow it too well.<br /><br />It belongs to that wonderful genre of serio-comic ghost/angel stories that would have to include everything from Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life" to Wenders's "Wings of Desire." <br /><br />The photography is stunning, the acting first rate, and--wonder of wonders--the tone is uplifting.<br /><br />My only criticism is that there is not much ambiguity in the film. The two interwoven stories seem intriguingly mysterious at first; but they resolve themselves a little too nicely for my taste. As the director points out in his commentary on the DVD, all the ingredients of Irwin's story are on his bedside table. The symbolism is just a trifle too pat for me.<br /><br />But what a lark! My favorite scene has to be when the relocation team tries to get breakfast at a diner. This is practically theatrical in its magic--a tour de force of witty acting--subtle, playful, and positively rhythmic--coupled with striking cinematography and an acute eye for the grotesque.<br /><br />"Northfork" is funny, touching, gorgeous to look at, magical (with the above reservations) and has not one single car-chase.<br /><br />An easy nine stars.
|
positive
|
Great show! About time a reality TV show comes along that closes generation gaps. Contestants range in ages, some seem old enough to have watched the movie when it first came out. And others, looked so young that perhaps parents or teachers handed down the movie hoping it would touch their lives the way it once touch them. Grease has truly become an American icon. Grease is a fun and entertaining movie in which the young and old can relate to. "You're The One That We Want" is sure to gain even more Grease followers. The only thing I wish there had been more of is character history, then again it is kind of nice to leave some of it to the nostalgic imagination of the 50's. Cant wait to watch the next show...and then on Broadway!!!
|
positive
|
Well let me just say something about these actors, they really were a good decision, and from experience, having actors really brings the dialogue to life. If you walk into this even fifteen minutes late, you'll be in for a shock, the movie will have already began. You don't want to miss the first few jokes, assuming you came to not miss any jokes.<br /><br />Wow! I have never seen a movie that ended with such a final ending. Not to be harsh, I mean I loved it, but it just surprised me that it really kept going until it stopped! But i'm getting ahead of myself, lets start with the very start of it, when it began. The plot outline goes like this, there is this man, and not to give away any spoilers, (*Spoiler Alert!!*) (he hasn't had any sex ever(!) they use this plot device to set the story moving, and there are (intentionally or not, it could go either way) some funny situations had by the main characters, some containing irony, and jokes, and awkward situations, you know.<br /><br />The director uses the advancements in technology by combining the film shot on the set and scripted dialog, some music, and jokes to make a funny movie, designed as a comedy, where he takes us on a journey from the opening credits to the end with an entirely full movie in between. I went into this movie expecting to see a funny comedy because of what I already knew about it, and left feeling as though i had just left a theater that just played a funny comedy. TEN STARS!!!
|
positive
|
After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day! <br /><br />While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...
|
negative
|
First of all, the entire script is mostly improv, adding to the fantastic illusion that what we are watching is an actual documentary. Secondly, the actors hired by Watkins were purposefully chosen to represent their true political alliances and backgrounds. The hippies portrayed are actual hippies, the government officials (though not necessarily in the government themselves) are at least actually hearty conservatives within the system, and several of the cops are actual policemen. The interactions of these actors, given the textual freedoms alloted by Watkins, eventually come to a violent head where even Watkins himself is convinced that a cast member had actually been shot. (We hear him screaming "Cut! Cut!" in the background.)<br /><br />An AMAZING film though American critics were quite harsh in their reviews, one actually reporting that it was the "most offensive" film she had ever seen. This not entirely unexpected as the unveiling of this oppressive communist-like mentality of America during this era would certainly rattle some cages. This pseudo-documentary definitely requires an open mind, though if you are seriously looking for an intensely accurate portrayal of 60s culture, this would be THE film to watch.
|
positive
|
A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh.
|
negative
|
I was "turned on" to this movie by my flight instructor and now I wonder how the heck it was out there for nearly five years before I finally discovered it. If you have any love of flying at all, especially an attachment to the planes of WWII, this is an absolute must see, vastly superior to the pathetic "Pearl Harbor" and up there in rivalry with the famed "Battle of Britain" filmed more than thirty years ago. There are moments when you feel as if you are flying wingman, literally dodging the shell casings of your leader as you roll in on a Me 109 or He 111. <br /><br />As an historian this film deeply touched me as well for it is about the plight endured by tens of thousands of gallant Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Czechs who in 1939-1940 fled their homelands, made it to England, fought with utmost bravery for the survival of western civilization, and then were so callously abandoned by "us" after the war when they were arrested by the communists upon their return to their native lands. I have stood atop Monte Cassino in Italy and was moved to tears by the cemetery for the Polish troops that stormed that mountain that British and Americans could not take. I have traveled as well to Prague (the most beautiful of cities) and studied their history. Their story of abandonment, I believe, should be a lesson to us even today about obligations to gallant allies. <br /><br />But back to the film. If you love flying, see this. If you are interested in the aircraft of WWII most definitely see it. Without doubt the most brutal, direct, and frightfully swift air combat scenes ever replicated for film. And yes, if you even are seeking a touching romance, there is that as well in heartbreaking detail.<br /><br />Bill Forstchen Professor of History Co-owner of a WWII replica "warbird" P-51 Mustang "Gloria Ann"
|
positive
|
If they could get Ed Asner why didn't they get other actors instead of people who go to the same church as the producers? And why did the protagonist throw the wise old sage character to the ground when he was never in danger. It forced the old guy to mask the injury out of pride and so the young guy would feel guilty leaving him with a life long disability. I guess thats why the main character refuses money though and why the old guy works him like a dog even when he volunteers for extra work. If the d-bag boyfriend is a bad guy because he is long-distance boyfriend then why is a soldier any better. He has good reason to be jealous, good reason to get her away from her hometown and over protective, controlling manipulative father. All the characters that are meant to be likable aren't and everyone else is the 'bad' boyfriend. How did they meet anyway, a wine broker and a saw mill worker?
|
negative
|
Two stars <br /><br />Amanda Plummer looking like a young version of her father, Christopher Plummer in drag, stars in this film along with Robert Forster--who really should have put a little shoe black on top of that bald spot.<br /><br />I've never seen Amanda Plummer in a good film. She always plays these slightly wacky characters in films that don't quite add up, and she does so yet again in this one.<br /><br />Firstly, we have two young women, sisters, who don't resemble in the slightest, who allow themselves to be picked up, separately, by questionable men along the roadways.<br /><br />Amanda's character, Sandra, does at least have a good reason for allowing Dr. Jake (Robert Forster)to pick her up in the first place. She has been run off the road, seemingly by a maniac, and her car is pretty much destroyed.<br /><br />Warning - Spoilers ahead! <br /><br />However, as we go along, we realize Dr. Jake is not playing with a full deck any more than Amanda is. He makes every decision based on the flip of a coin.<br /><br />When Dr. Jake and Amanda arrive at a motel, who do we see but the maniac's car, and what does Amanda do but get inside his station wagon and start snooping around. What her motive was for doing this is never clear considering the man is apparently dangerous and might try to kill her. One would think the last thing she would do is place herself in such a precarious situation.<br /><br />Not only does she snoop around, but she finds some money and takes it.<br /><br />Shortly after this we have several other things that don't add up.<br /><br />Dr. Jake, with Amanda as his passenger, runs out of gas, and the two of them abandon his car and begin walking. One would think crossing a desert, he would have checked his gas gauge--this seems a very unlikely thing for him to allow to happen. Then later, he is seen driving the same car. When or how did he get the car back? <br /><br />Dr. Jake tells Amanda he knows she has taken the money. Now how would he know that? He didn't see her do it as far as I know, and she didn't tell him she did it.<br /><br />Then later we have a character named Santini (David Thewlis), the man who was driving the station wagon, give the two of them a lift and I'll be darned if he doesn't know Amanda took the money as well. How would he know that? <br /><br />It loses credibility at an alarming rate the further we go.<br /><br />When Alice, Amanda's sister (Fairuza Balk)gets in the clutches of the killer and decides her fate on the toss of a coin - one would think she would be very, very careful that the coin she swaps for a trick coin would definitely be the trick coin - but apparently it isn't.<br /><br />It's jarring things like this, that destroy any credibility this movie may have had.
|
negative
|
A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.
|
negative
|
Not as bad as you've heard. There are actually some funny parts and Affleck and Applegate have fairly good chemistry. Applegate, in particular, is appealing and likable as Affleck's love interest. James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara are consummate professionals. They're pretty good in just about everything. In the end, "Surviving" is not the worst holiday movie you'll ever see. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it is unfocused and much of the comedy is forced. The attempts at dark humor come off as dour. Affleck tries hard to be endearingly spastic and overenthusiastic but comes across as disturbed. His character's cartoonish nature is brought into high relief when viewed next to Gandolfini and O'Hara's more muted, believable performances. Even by the relaxed standards of holiday movies, you never fully buy into the set-up of Affleck "renting" this family for X-mas.<br /><br />There are also scenes that border on the surreal in their strangeness. The X-mas eve scene replete with incestuous humor (a son being discovered looking at naked, provocative pictures of his mother) that not only isn't funny or believable but disturbing.<br /><br />To make matters worse, the colors in this film are muddy, almost noirish. The house set on which most of the movie takes place looks stagey and cheap.<br /><br />"Surviving" is mostly of interest as the fourth in a string of box office duds (Paycheck, Gigli, Jersey Girl, and this) for Affleck. It remains to be seen how lasting the damage will be.
|
negative
|
Istanbul is a big , crowded city between Europe and Asia.Too many types of people living together there for hundred years.In this documentary movie you can see how music can give description about the culture of the owner race.<br /><br />You would be able to hear too many types of music including rock , hip-hop , arabesque , alternative and more. Some of the musicians are famous in Turkey , some of them are famous also in Europe. The rest are just street musicians. Their music tell viewers , different faces of a city. <br /><br />Impressive !
|
positive
|
This espionage melodrama has a nice, almost promising cast, and should have been very atmospheric; there is a will, or an intention of atmosphereand also a want, or a lack of it.<br /><br />Sheen plays a dissident who now activates as an agent, he is a loner, loved by women but haughty; Mrs. Fossey is his mistress. Neill plays the gallant, generous, chivalrous Soviet agent.<br /><br />Sheen and Neill are both essentially annoying; Finlay does a cameo, and so do other known actors. Mrs. Fossey is hot; but then again, she always is.<br /><br />I will be your true friend and break it to youthe flick is low on suspense and on excitement, it's trite and quite boring; the good thing is that you get to see Mrs. Fossey naked. Other than that, lukewarm derivative espionage exploitation.
|
negative
|
Hobgoblins....Hobgoblins....where do I begin?!?<br /><br />This film gives Manos - The Hands of Fate and Future War a run for their money as the worst film ever made. This one is fun to laugh at, where as Manos was just painful to watch. Hobgoblins will end up in a time capsule somewhere as the perfect movie to describe the term: "80's cheeze". The acting (and I am using this term loosely) is atrocious, the Hobgoblins are some of the worst puppets you will ever see, and the garden tool fight has to be seen to be believed. The movie was the perfect vehicle for MST3K, and that version is the only way to watch this mess. This movie gives Mike and the bots lots of ammunition to pull some of the funniest one-liners they have ever done. If you try to watch this without the help of Mike and the bots.....God help you!!
|
negative
|
"Death Machines" takes a fairly decent premise for an action movie (unstoppable martial arts killing machines sent out to eliminate a crime boss' opponents) and turns it into an unwatchable mess. I have rarely seen such a breath taking combination of tiny budget, bad acting and incoherent script released as a so-called "movie". It's easily the worst martial-arts/action oriented movie I've seen in years, eclipsing even "Ninja Holocaust" (which at least had some good energetic fight scenes). <br /><br />The actual "star" of the movie is the white "Death Machine", (it's basically his vehicle) so he is featured prominently in many more scenes than his two cohorts. He's in good shape, and he's not bad looking, but as an actor he's barely there - think Chuck Norris in "The Octagon",only without any energy or emotion.This is obviously a deliberate choice on the part of the actor and director...but you have to be Arnold to pull this kind of thing off, and this guy is no Arnold.<br /><br />The movie (and the director) can't seem to find the time (or the budget) to film the scenes that would have answered the basic questions that it originally posed, like: Who was the shadowy figure giving the marbled-mouthed Asian lady her orders? How did the "gang war" end? Why did the mush-mouthed Asian lady decide to have her zombie assassins killed? And what the heck happened that left her assistant dead and her wielding a katana like a broom stick? <br /><br />It does, however, find the time to film a completely extraneous bar fight in which a sailor (well, he looked like Popeye) destroys a bar because the juke box didn't work. It's only related to the rest of the film because in the process he also K.O.'s the movie's "hero", a bartender/karate student who was a victim of the "Death Machines" first major assignment (he got his hand chopped off while they were killing his teacher). It follows this up with one of the most un-called for "love scenes" between the hero and his girlfriend I have ever watched. The segue makes no sense - at the end of the bar-fight, she's grimacing over his splayed limp body, and the next thing they are in a "tasteful" shadow montage of sex and love that looks like it came from a Hallmark card. BTW, we never see the sailor again. <br /><br />And wait until you see the showdown between the homicide detective and his captain - it plays as if the director and screenwriter never actually saw a movie scene placed inside a police station, but had heard of them second hand and decided to include some without really knowing how they worked. <br /><br />The movie is a textbook case of poor casting and community theater-level actors floundering without decent direction. The three "Death Machines" come across as clods; the "hero" knows his lines but can't carry the movie, given that his character is an ineffective wimp; his girlfriend is a charisma vacuum; and all the other minor parts are barely watchable. All this makes for a fairly poor movie- but the "dragon lady" does more to drag the movie into subterranean stinker territory than anyone or anything else. She looks ridiculous; her tiny, inexpressive face is overpowered by her ton-o-hair skyscraper wig, she wears her red silk dress like a bathrobe, and she talks with a terrible mush-mouth delivery that screams "needed time with a dialog coach". Poor lady - she was obviously way out of her element, and as far as I know, never appeared in a film again. <br /><br />Add to this a low-budget one-synthesizer soundtrack that never shuts up and never plays anything appropriate or interesting; crappy film stock and lighting; fight choreography that is strictly from hunger; and a general all around dreariness and lack of energy in the blocking and the stage business...and you have one lame movie. <br /><br />I got this as part of a 50 movie DVD compilation, so it probably cost me about 50 cents to watch it. It wasn't worth it. Feh!
|
negative
|
Not as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse)
more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos
especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging.
|
negative
|
I'm currently slogging through Gibbon's 'Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire , so I've had all things Roman on my mind. I'm not very far into it yet, maybe two hundred plus pages, but it is amazing just how many of these Roman emperors were killed. I believe I've read through maybe 15 emperors so far and only Antonius, Trajan, and Hadrian haven't been killed or at least suspected of having been killed. I have also been fascinated by the mad excesses of many of these princes of Rome. Not the least practitioner of these was Caligula. This brings me to reviewing this film. I'm thinking of the film on a historical basis as far as I understand it from Gibbon's explanation of Rome,as well as other research from some good web sites and some fiction novels dealings with the period.<br /><br />My point is I do not think that this film is what it is thought to be by many of it's proponents. I do not think the depravity shown with the sex and horrendous violence of this film qualify it as accurate. The general ideas of the film seem accurate. Caligula is raised on an island ,exiled with his family and in content fear of being murdered by the increasingly mad, suspicious and strange emperor Tiberius. He grows up paranoid and afraid and can never shake the cutesy nickname given him by his guards, Little Boots, this helps him grow up feeling abused and powerless. He is handed the empire after Tiberius dies, the senate hoping he will steer away from the informer squads which brought death by whim of the former delusionally paranoid tyrant, and lead Rome away from the madness that dictator had settled it into. Caligula begins as a decent if hands-off emperor, but gets sick, almost dies, and comes back from the brink of feverous death a true monster. His perversities with his sisters do begin here, if not before. He does have Macro killed and many others who were his originally supporters. The acts of madness seemed not to be the murders of Caligula as much as his new thinking of himself as a living God. Him seen talking to the statue of Jupiter as an equal doomed him. His violent mad excesses would have doomed him anyway, and three years seems to have been quite a decent run for the successors of Tiberius. Well the film basically sticks to these lines while it manages to be coherent, which is not common through it's entirety, it does so while trying to shock the audience at all turns, in every single scene the film begs you to be disgusted by the depravity of ancient Rome. The shocking scenes are what this film is built entirely upon and where it entirely fails. It is just too much to see successive rulers have man after man murdered, raped, tortured for no reason but fancy. The depictions of the violence are possibly, but not probably, accurate. Murder certainly was the order of the day in Imperial Rome, torture beforehand was rote. But the director's visions of these deaths and the bored amusement of their protagonists, while the bystanders watch with nonchalance, I just don't see it having gone down exactly like that. The death machine, the beheader, is certainly something like you've never seen in movies, and something once seen you shall probably never forget, even as I, you wish you could. The wine drinking while the penis is roped off is the same, once you've seen this shame it is yours forever. These things strike me the director's and that porn magnate's fantasies. They sprung from their sick imaginations and not from any proved record.<br /><br />The acting is pretty good. I actually think Mcdowell is the weakest link here. Mirren is always something to behold, and here in her youthful years she is formidable and beautiful. The portrayals of Nerva and Tiberius are done very well by their respected actors. The film could have done so much better story telling, it is such a failure that way its just a whole other layer of what a shame this thing was. For example it could have given opinion on how and why Caligula went mad, or shown that he was mad, paranoid before his illness and that fever then broke the mental restraint he had possessed previously. It could have shown the weakness of Claudius and the miracle it was he survived Caligula. It could have these and many other things but it stuck to it's sad nightmares.<br /><br />Finally about the sex. It is porn. It shows these sex acts being done all over the palaces by many people. Male on male, female on female, male on female. It is passionless, disgusting sex. Sex that if your point is to get off on it, I seriously doubt you could. Both Tiberius and Caligula may have been sex addicts, and orgies may have been common enough but the visions in this film seem to recall more a Greek time than a Roman. I don't think that kind of acceptance of homosexuality or orgies right out in the open were common until the the strange, depraved reign of Elgabalus, and he was killed for it.<br /><br />This film should probably never be watched, if your curious about it , let it go. It is something, as I said earlier, if you do watch this you will unfortunately retain it's sick visions in your minds eye for years to come. I don't think its an accurate historical picture in particular, even if it is historical in whole.
|
negative
|
The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles<br /><br />The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)<br /><br />The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes<br /><br />The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle<br /><br />Everything is predictable and filmy and too clichéd<br /><br />There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note<br /><br />Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre<br /><br />Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay
|
negative
|
For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.<br /><br />The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.<br /><br />Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.<br /><br />As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better.
|
negative
|
This movie stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies.
|
negative
|
The story of a little girl who was driven once by fear and now by pain, she becomes woman and a vengeful crime fighter. Her power is to manifest strong anime characters onto herself. This movie fuses animation with live action as she wields her animated sword through all that stands before her. She struggles to deal with life, her demons, and her fears.<br /><br />Young Emily watched her parents fight and argue. She watched her Dad leave her motherless. Emily soon discovered she had the power to do something about it. Emily grew through life traveling as a loner and at night she had the power to make a difference in the world.<br /><br />This movie is a great blend of animation and real action. There are many themes and metaphors that run deep through the movie. This movie is broke up as a 12 part series.
|
positive
|
The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.<br /><br />To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him! <br /><br />Or something like that.<br /><br />The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.<br /><br />It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.<br /><br />Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.<br /><br />Yeah right.<br /><br />The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending. <br /><br />"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist." <br /><br />I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.
|
negative
|
I can't believe this movie only scores 7.4! This surely ranks up with the best of Hitchcock's movies such as VERTIGO or MARNIE. The only reason I can think of why the score is so low, is that for the most part, THE MAN... renounces violence and certainly won't get a diploma in "sex and crime".<br /><br />What it derives its tension from is not violence, it's the reckless energy of these criminals that take a child from his parents and are ready to kill the kid if the operation fails. Today, having seen a lot of hardboiled kidnapping movies as Mel Gibson's RANSOM, this seems normal, but in the 1950s, where family was all in contemporary America, the thought of such a crime surely has stirred up emotions a lot.<br /><br />And this tension still works for me, today. Yeah, these guys are selfish, ignorant bastards, disturbing in how they act: It's a deal for them, and they want to be "good businessmen", disregarding the fact that business here is kidnapping kids and assassinating politicians in the opera!! <br /><br />What makes the movie great, however, are the creative aspects, the kinky ideas of Hitchcock, the outrageously disturbing scene in the church (which brings it to the viewer's attention how alone, how abandoned the protagonists are, nobody caring, nobody helping, the people in the church just going home...), the meeting with the owner of that shop stuffing and preparing dead animals (which stresses the somewhat "oriental" flair the movie has from the opening scenes abroad), last not least the role of MUSIC in this movie.<br /><br />Music is the key principle here, as ***SPOILER*** the assassination of the targeted politician is to be done exactly in the moment of a loud orchastra tutti/gong; so Hitchcock lets the camera follow the orchestra score and you now it will happen in a second ***BANG*** And then, of course, DORIS DAY singing Que sera, which became more famous than the movie itself; she sings it to notify the kid of his parents being in the embassy...<br /><br />All in all: A classic!!
|
positive
|
Pretty lame and awful slasher about someone killing the members of a high school track team after their star runner dies during a meet.<br /><br />Christopher George gives a hilariously over-the-top performance as the track team's coach. I don't think ANYONE has ever taken track and field as seriously as Chris does here - not even in the Olympics. It's a typically divine CG performance, and if you are a fan of the man/the legend, you should run right out and grab a copy.<br /><br />But we watch slashers for the murders (you know it's true), not the performances, and Graduation Day fails to deliver on most counts (there is one really good kill). True horror only comes during a performance by the band "Felony". Never heard of 'em? Watch Graduation Day and find out why.
|
negative
|
This is a great movie, it shows what our government will to to other countries if we don't like their government. This isn't as bad as what Reagan and Bush number one did to South America, but the US still has no business messing around with other countries like this. This movies also proves that American media spouts government propaganda. This is exactly what they did to Aristide in Haiti. The reason this coup against Chavez didn't succeed is Chavez was elected with over 90% of the vote.<br /><br />This movie isn't just a political documentary, it would still be a great movie if it were a drama, it's amazing that this is real.<br /><br />The other reviewer is lying when he says "Chavez seizes the airwaves", the private media is running anti Chavez propaganda all the time.
|
positive
|
I first heard of this movie after purchasing the 1976 flick "Snuff". I was told that Devil's Experiment was much better so naturally I went ahead and ordered the Guinea Pig box set. I was really interested to hear that Charlie Sheen had come out trying to ban either this movie or the second one, so my interest was peaked.<br /><br />Devil's Experiment is a short film with no story, no character development. Just 3 men torturing a woman for about 45 minutes. They torture her in various ways like beating her, spinning her in circles over and over again then forcing her to drink alcohol, forcing her to listen to hi-pitched noise for 24 hours, smash her hand with a mallet, burning and putting maggots on the burns, throwing guts at her, and ultimately shoving a sharp needle through her eye.<br /><br />I must say that a lot of this movie was fake, like the beating scenes. But then, some of it was actually well done as far as grossing you out. The scenes in which the woman is being spun around in circles was making me dizzy watching it. Or the scene in which she is forced to listen to sharp noise for 24 hours is painful to think about. The worst is the eye scene. I didn't shutter when watching it but simply thought "Damn, that looks pretty good for such a low budget movie". I did enjoy the flick but I don't know if I can really recommend this unless you have seen most of what the horror genre has to offer. 7/10
|
positive
|
I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.
|
negative
|
Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.
|
negative
|
I'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.
|
negative
|
One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its "quirky" characters and "outrageous" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew "Dice" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.
|
negative
|
Dr. Seuss would sure be mad right now if he was alive. Cat in the Hat proves to show how movie productions can take a classic story and turn it into a mindless pile of goop. We have Mike Myers as the infamous Cat in the Hat, big mistake! Myers proves he can't act in this film. He acts like a prissy show girl with a thousand tricks up his sleeve. The kids in this movie are all right, somewhere in between the lines of dull and annoying. The story is just like the original with a couple of tweaks and like most movies based on other stories, never tweak with the original story! Bringing in the evil neighbor Quin was a bad idea. He is a stupid villain that would never get anywhere in life.This movie is like a rejected comic strip from the newspaper if you think about it. The film sure does look tacky! Sure there are a funny adult jokes like where the cat cuts of his tail and the censor goes off before he says a naughty word, mildly funny. At least the Grinch had spunk, and the film was actually good! This film is a cartoonish piece of snot with bright colors and bad mediocre acting. Was Mike Myers even in this movie actually? And another thing, the fish. What is with that stupid fish! First time you see him, he's an actual fish. Next time you see him, he's all animated and talking. But he looks like an animated piece of rubber play dough! This film is a total off target wreck. Good joke, bad joke, bad, bad, bad, good joke! I'm surprised it even had good jokes like the water park ride joke, that was good. So please if you have the choice, watch the Grinch instead of this mess.
|
negative
|
This...... Movie.... Is..... Horrible!!!!!! You won't believe this hunk of junk is even a movie!!!! Critters4 was better then this!!! And Critters4 was pretty frigging bad too!!! A bunch of stupid teens crash in a desert, find an old run down bungalow, and end up fending off horrifically badly stop motion animated spiders. Pardon my french, but the acting was bad as hell!!! The person who wrote this probably didn't even know what a spider is, because he had the spiders living in a colony serving an alien-queen-ripoff queen spider! SPIDERS DO NOT LIVE IN COLONIES!!!!!!!!! THIS "MOVIE" IS A PIECE OF CRUD!!! At the end, the marines suddenly pop out of no where and kill all the spider without even being called!!!! If you see a copy of this movie at a video store, douse it in gasoline and throw a match at it!!!!
|
negative
|
Interesting how much more realistic Brosnan's performance is to that of the original James Bond novels when compared to the bond films. He's neurotic, paranoid, an alcoholic and a womanizer to boot. This is perfect break for him, even so much as to make fun of the bond icon. "I'm a mess, a parody of myself" he says. It doesn't get any better than that. I just finished reading Dr.No and this is very much how Ian Fleming had portrayed James Bond. Personally I never liked Brosnan as Bond because he fit the icon too closely. There was nothing for him to personalize the character with, as compared to Roger Moore or Sean Connery. Its great to see Brosnan play a character both grounded in reality and flamboyantly off the wall. A shallow character trying to come to an understanding on deeper emotional and psychological issues to which he has no background dealing with. It's an impressive portrayal, and having Greg Kinear to ground him, is just poetic. This movie reminds me a little bit of dynamics established between the main characters in "My Blue Heaven", but more genuine in their coping mechanisms.
|
positive
|
Welcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs up.
|
positive
|
This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it.
|
positive
|
Honestly, this is the best reality show anyone has ever come up with. In order to win the money you have to actually be INTELLIGENT. Not only that you've got to be brave, athletic, cunning, etc. It actually requires skill. Not like some lame-ass shows that are on these days. And yet, they only have two seasons of it! Bull..they need to bring this show back!! <br /><br />Although, they'll have a hard time pulling Anderson Cooper away from CNN. He was great.<br /><br />But seriously, it was an amazing show. You never knew who would be going when. And it was so much fun trying to figure out the mole yourself! It was a show you could actually play yourself if you wanted to!<br /><br />BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!! BRING BACK THE MOLE!!!!
|
positive
|
Moonwalker is such a great movie, from start to finish you cant take your eyes away. i love all the clips of Michael singing and dancing and I just love the 'studio tour' bit...soo funny :) And the 'mini movie' is to cool, with all the special FX etc...Michael is a genius and always will be!!!
|
positive
|
It is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well.
|
positive
|
1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.
|
negative
|
Well let me say that I have always been a Steven seagal fan and his movies are usually great but this just don't measure up to the rest. This in my opinion is very stupid I did not like it all. The biggest reason I don't like it is because it is very flawed and to me does not make much sense. The acting is very bad even Steven seagal does not do good acting, The rest of the actors I can see because they just do direct to video movies. It does not follow a straight storyline everything happens at once so that why it doesn't make much sense. Ther is barely any action in it at all and in order to make an action movie good you usually need action in it. The special effects are very bad and you can tell are fake. So all in all this has to seagals worst movie of all so if you want to see a Steven seagal movie don't rent this one just pretend it does not exist. So just avoid this movie.<br /><br />Overall score: ** out of ********** <br /><br />* out of *****
|
negative
|
CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.<br /><br />A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.<br /><br />A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.<br /><br />In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.<br /><br />The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.
|
positive
|
I own the miniseries on DVD because I love this story so much. This is one of the best period pieces on the Civil War that I have seen that tells a story of friendship divided by the war. The costumes are great, the story lines are great, I love how the story jumps around from character to character to keep you guessing as to what's going to happen next in their lives. There is a great balance of good and evil. Some of the characters that are evil in my opinion are too good not to watch. Every time something more despicable than the last happens I curse the TV as if they can hear me. I love how this miniseries makes me feel engaged in it's drama. I would advise however NOT to watch the third movie in the DVD series. It's a let down compared to the first two movies and most of the original characters do not return. I don't wish to remember how the third movie ended, I prefer to live with the thoughts of the ending in the second movie. It makes me happy.
|
positive
|
A bunch of mostly obnoxious and grossly unappealing teens go to a creepy, remote, rundown old mortuary located nearby a cemetery to attend an anything-goes all-out Halloween party being hosted by freaky occult-obsessed oddball Mimi Kinkade and her vacuous, boy-hungry bimbette friend Linnea Quigley. The loutish, profane, beer-guzzling, sex-happy dipstick dimwits hold a séance as a joke (very bad idea, 'cause the desolate old dive is naturally said to be haunted by demonic spirits). Of course, that ill-advised séance awakens those decidedly grumpy and hostile evil spirits, who gruesomely kill and possess a majority of the kids, turning them into ugly, fanged, clawed, boil-faced murderous ghouls who wreak the usual grisly havoc throughout the duration of an especially long, dark and harrowing night of pure terror.<br /><br />Yep, this is essentially your umpteenth vigorously graphic and unrelenting wall-to-wall cheap shock-ridden "Evil Dead" rehash, replete with closed-off, there's no easy way out claustrophobic single self-confined setting, outrageously excessive splatter set pieces, an incessantly pounding hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, a total sense of gloom'n'doom-laden grim nightmarishness, and vibrantly in-your-face manic careening cinematography (the expected headlong rush-inducing hyperactive hand-held camera-work, smooth, sinuous tracking shots, crazily tittled camera angles, even the camera on a dolly doing a gracefully gliding 180 degree figure eight). Fortunately, Kevin S. Tenney's slick, assured, stylish direction keeps the extremely threadbare and derivative proceedings thundering along at a speedy clip; moreover, Tenny gives the film an attractive polished look and effectively creates a certain crudely energetic and enthusiastically grotesque spooky ooga-booga carnival funhouse atmosphere.<br /><br />However, Steve Johnson's marvelously gory and imaginative make-up effects are the true star of the show. Bloodthirsty highlights include disgusting fat slob Hal Havins (who played a similarly irritating obese a**hole role in the immortal "Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-A-Rama" around the same time) having his tongue bitten off, Quigley shoving a whole tube of lipstick in one of her breasts (yow!) and gouging a guy's eyes out while she's making love to him (double yow!), a libidinous teen couple getting offed while doing exactly what you think in a coffin (the chick has her neck snapped while the dude has his arm chopped off), Kinkade setting her hands on fire, and, in the film's single most nasty scene, a mean old man has his throat slit from the inside out after eating an apple piece laced with razor blades. The trashy'n'thrashy rock score likewise smokes. And then there's Kinkade's incredibly wild, sexy and uninhibited demon dance, a sizzling number accompanied by a flickering strobe light and startling jump cuts that Kinkade choreographed herself. Okay, so this overall doesn't amount to anything more than a completely mindless and pointless, albeit quite nicely mounted and enjoyably vulgar hunk of blithely sleazy fright flick junk, but if you're in the mood for entertainingly brain-dead lowbrow horror scuzziness this cheerfully crass and juvenile dross does the trick just fine.
|
positive
|
Charles Boyer is supposed to be Spanish, and he's come to London to buy coal in "Confidential Agent," a 1945 film also starring Lauren Bacall, Katina Paxinou, Peter Lorre, Dan Seymour, and Wanda Hendrix. Boyer is Luis Denard, and everyone is out to stop him except Bacall. His papers are stolen, he's accused of murder but he's determined to get coal for his people so that they can fight the Fascists.<br /><br />This film has its good and not so good points. It rates high for atmosphere and for suspense, and it is highly entertaining. Bacall is incredibly beautiful, Boyer is passionate, Paxinou is mean, Lorre is slimy, Hendrix appropriately pathetic, and Seymour outrageously wonderful.<br /><br />The not so good points: Bacall is supposed to be English, and Boyer Spanish. Uh, no. Boyer is terrific in his role even with the wrong accent, but Bacall is 100% American, not of the British upper class. The two have no chemistry. Conclusion: Bacall is somewhat miscast. Her acting isn't up to snuff either; she's better in other films. But she's an astonishing looking woman, and much can be forgiven.<br /><br />Paxinou is nearly over the top and hateful. Dan Seymour almost steals the entire film as a hotel guest who studies human nature. It's a great part and his performance is perfect, while some of the direction of the other actors isn't as good. This was definitely a case of no small parts, only small actors. Seymour wasn't a small actor.<br /><br />Definitely worth seeing even with its flaws.
|
positive
|
This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?<br /><br />Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.<br /><br />Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.
|
negative
|
This was a pretty good episode. Though no "Trapped in the Closet" or "Cartoon Wars," it had a lot of things going for it. The character of Al Gore and that bizarre-as-hell "super cereal" thing was pretty darn funny. But, the scene that made me adore this episode was one I'm sure everyone will agree was one of the greatest Cartman/Kyle moments ever. When Cartman is superstitious of Kyle that he'll be stealing his gold(which of course is fake!), and he comes within inches of his face. Suddenly, Kyle wakes up, and they have that crazy conversation where Cartman tries to act like everything is completely fine. Cartman crapping out the treasure at the end, though predictable, was pretty funny.
|
positive
|
I went to an advance screening of this movie thinking I was about to embark on 120 minutes of cheezy lines, mindless plot, and the kind of nauseous acting that made "The Postman" one of the most malignant displays of cinematic blundering of our time. But I was shocked. Shocked to find a film starring Costner that appealed to the soul of the audience. Shocked that Ashton Kutcher could act in such a serious role. Shocked that a film starring both actually engaged and captured my own emotions. Not since 'Robin Hood' have I seen this Costner: full of depth and complex emotion. Kutcher seems to have tweaked the serious acting he played with in "Butterfly Effect". These two actors came into this film with a serious, focused attitude that shone through in what I thought was one of the best films I've seen this year. No, its not an Oscar worthy movie. It's not an epic, or a profound social commentary film. Rather, its a story about a simple topic, illuminated in a way that brings that audience to a higher level of empathy than thought possible. That's what I think good film-making is and I for one am throughly impressed by this work. Bravo!
|
positive
|
This, and Immoral Tales, both left a bad taste in my mouth. It seems to me that Borowczyk is disgusted by sex, and these two films are cautionary tales about what will happen if you do have sex. As a film, it's not very well done -- some of the acting is truly epically bad (such as the "American" woman with the French accent). The young woman's sudden flip-flop from being anxious about the marriage to being interested (when it seems like it should have been the other way around), and the aunt's sudden realization of the young man's secret don't make sense -- they're not explained at all. I also didn't like how the daughter's relationship with a black man was presented as a sign of her family's perversion or predilection for bestiality. The central idea, the idea that there's this "sexy beast," if you will, that lives in the woods, could have been a foundation for a perverse but fun story, but instead is just used as a basis for a nasty, sex-negative, morality play.
|
negative
|
Definitely not a film to revolutionize the industry or introduce any new techniques of film-making, this is a very handsome and solid production. It's miraculous that we can today enjoy it in superb quality on DVD - probably most of the viewers about a 100 years ago saw a black and white copy, as the stencil tinted de luxe edition was available only at the very best theaters. Even if you are not fascinated by this film or the subject of it, you can't but marvel at the copy released by Image Entertainment (together with another gem, From the Manger To the Cross, 1912). It's virtually impossible to see a film that is over a century old but shows so little damage. The process of stencil colouring was a very effective one and, compared to the occasionally blurry and smeared images of hand coloured film, the colours are crisp and well defined. Filmed within the limitations of the film-making as known back in 1902 when the filming commenced, the static nature of the scenes can today be considered almost intentional, meditative and solemn. The tableaux keep moving at a steady paste, so the film never gets tedious. You might not be fascinated by this film as a work of cinematography, but it sure is handsome as a work of academic, picturesque art. If you are a religious person, the fact that you are watching anonymous, long since departed people playing long since departed characters, adds to the mystery significantly. A proper viewing for Christmas or Lent. <br /><br />P.S: I've ticked the "contains spoilers" box just for fun. As you can see, I haven't revealed the ending.
|
positive
|
Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.<br /><br />Potential minor spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.<br /><br />The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.<br /><br />What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.<br /><br />The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.<br /><br />Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".
|
negative
|
It's 2 stars only because they put a lot of work in making this game look good. I played plenty of good and bad games and I think this game has the dullest story I was ever forced to listen. The best thing they could have done is to let you skip the conversations (but no, you must listen to them talking for 10 minutes) and just continue doing the same things over and over again. Climb the building, save the citizen, go kill some dude. IT'S ALL THE SAME! Ubisoft should really hire someone with some imagination.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of Prince of Persia series (first 3). The story was good and you wanted to know what happens next all the time. I don't even hate Prince of Persia 4. But I think anyone who was in charge of developing the story for Assassin's Creed should be banned to write another thing for the rest of his life.<br /><br />Boring story and same missions over and over again! If just one of these two things was good the game would be worth playing.
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.