review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Depression following almost ruined the American Musical Theater, in fact it was the final death blow to vaudeville. Those behind the curtains were hit as bad as those in front.<br /><br />In an effort to stimulate the show business economy and his own personal economy, out of work theater director James Cagney comes up with a brilliant idea. Stage live relevant prologues to the movies that are being shown at the various movie theaters that are springing up overnight from the old theaters. Some other competitors get wind of it and the competition is on.<br /><br />Footlight Parade is my favorite Busby Berkeley film. It gives James Cagney a chance to display some of his versatility as a dancer as well as a tough guy. In his retirement Cagney said that while he screened his few and far between musicals a lot, he could barely be bothered with some of his straight dramatic films. He wished he'd done a few more musicals in his career and I wish he had.<br /><br />Of course the staging of these Busby Berkeley extravaganzas on the stage of a movie palace defies all logic and reason. But it's so creative and fun to watch. <br /><br />Dick Powell gets to sing three songs in Footlight Parade, Ah the Moon is Here, Honeymoon Hotel, and By a Waterfall, the last two with Ruby Keeler further cementing that screen team. Ruby sings and dances with Powell in the last two and she partners with James Cagney in my favorite number from Footlight Parade, Shanghai Lil. <br /><br />Joan Blondell is Cagney's no nonsense girl Friday at the theater. Like in Blonde Crazy, she's the one with the real brains in that duo and it's her quick thinking that bails him out of some domestic problems he has on top of his theatrical ones. One of Blondell's best screen roles.<br /><br />Look for Dorothy Lamour and Ann Sothern in the chorus as per the IMDb pages for both of them. John Garfield is seen briefly in the Shanghai Lil number. And in a scene at the beginning of the film, producer Guy Kibbee takes Cagney to a movie theater where they are showing a B western starring John Wayne. The Duke's voice is unmistakable. But what's even more unusual is that the brief clip shows him in a scene with Frank McHugh who plays another Cagney assistant in Footlight Parade. I think the brothers Warner were playing a little joke there. I've got to believe that clip was deliberate.<br /><br />Footlight Parade is Busby Berkeley at his surreal best.
|
positive
|
This is most likely the best picture not many will see. It presented a culture in a real unhollywoodized way. A must see for all who like Indie and for those who don't. I think this movie will draw more into the Indie scene. The acting was top notch! The character of Alice was portreyed so well. With perfect akwardness. This movie ahould be brought to the mainstream! I think it would do phenominally! ALICE is the most real look at an element of our culture that I have seen since GO ASK ALICE. A look that is untouched by the Hollywood hand. Movies like this show young people that these things aren't glamorous but that they are real and compelling. If you liked PIECES OF APRIL you will love this one!
|
positive
|
Harmony Korrine - hate him or hate him? On this evidence, loathe might be a better word. Not him of course, just everything he does. But it could've been so different because the first ten minutes of this film promises so much including a fantastic idea of a Michael Jackson impersonator falling in love with a Marilyn Monroe impersonator. Fantastic. And set in Paris! This could be great. But unfortunately, Korrine may spark the odd decent idea but because he is an awful writer, the story fails on every level and the audience walkout I witnessed about an hour in is proof positive that he is the most boring and pretentious film-making out there. Apparently the walk-out rate at its premiere in last years Cannes festival was quite shocking. Instead of focusing on the two protagonists, he switches the story stupidly to the confines of a château to introduce a bunch of other impersonators making the whole experience tedious and narratively barren. When will the independent cinema stop funding this upstart?
|
negative
|
This film is not morbid, nor is it depressing. It -is- sad, because AIDS in the early '90s -was- sad. But its real message is one of love and perseverance.<br /><br />Mark and Tom were in a long-term, loving relationship. Their devotion to each other is evident right away, and as the ravages of AIDS escalate and become the focal point of their lives, you see strength and commitment that are truly heartwarming.<br /><br />When "Silverlake Life" was originally released, I was deeply involved in HIV/AIDS education and health care, volunteering as a counselor at an HIV/AIDS clinic. The film spoke to me like no other AIDS film of its day could, because Mark and Tom were real people, living the very experiences that I saw on a daily basis in real life. I knew from firsthand experience what it was like to watch AIDS eat away at formerly vibrant, young, healthy people; seeing it happen to Mark and Tom in the film was very much like watching my real-life friends deteriorate. It touched me in a way that, even all these years later, still affects me.
|
positive
|
The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.<br /><br />I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs.
|
negative
|
I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.
|
negative
|
Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.
|
negative
|
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.<br /><br />The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
|
negative
|
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.<br /><br />A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.<br /><br />Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.<br /><br />The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting? <br /><br />The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.<br /><br />And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.<br /><br />And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.<br /><br />Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.<br /><br />It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.<br /><br />4/10
|
negative
|
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.
|
negative
|
Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.
|
negative
|
This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.
|
negative
|
Jon Voight plays a man named Joe. Joe is shook up by a haunting childhood. He has a strong fear and hatred of religion due to his traumatic baptism. He quits his job as a dishwasher and goes out to become a hustler for wealthy people. He meets a misfit named Ratso(Dustin Hoffman) and the two for a relationship. They go out and work together in helping each other out. They become thieves. The two grow remarkably close and soon can't live without each other. However, there is something very important that Ratso hasn't told Joe, and it could destroy any hope they have of surviving the city together. This is one of the greatest films ever made. It is a heartbreaking and shattering portrait of too very lonely men who have nothing to lose but each other. Their story is devastating to watch, but is ultimately important for people to see. It's one of those films where the characters are pretty much just like the seemingly crazy people you sometimes find on the street. The difference is that this film is from their perspective. Their lives are shown to us and it's devastating to see the pedestrians in this film treat them like dirt, especially if we at one time were one of those people. However, the film doesn't try to guilt trip you. Instead, it shows you the rough side of the lifestyle of hustling. It is not a pleasant and easygoing lifestyle like many Hollywood films portray it such as MILK MONEY and PRETTY WOMAN. The lifestyle of being a male hustler is a dirty, gritty, and ugly life and it's sad that people have degraded themselves like the character of Joe in this film does. What startles me the most about this film was that it came out in 1969, and it has stood the test of time perfectly. Today's audiences will still find great meaning in this film and will still love it and cherish it just as much as critics and audiences did everywhere in 1969. The film was rated X, but what I notice about this film is that the sexuality is portrayed in a much more honest, realistic, and effective way. Anybody who has had sex before will know how humorous, awkward, and scary as hell it can be and this film doesn't shy away from any of that. The sex in this film may not be as graphic as in once was thought to be. Movies that were X rated such as MIDNIGHT COWBOY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, GREETINGS, LAST TANGO IN Paris, and FRITZ THE CAT all seem remarkably tame compared to the shocking things that people can get away with an R rating today. The sex scenes in MIDNIGHT COWBOY will seem quite strong but they certainly aren't sexy. They are not graphic, but they are realistic, and that's what people should keep in mind when they view this film. The course language that is used in the film, particularly the word "fag" is used effectively and is not gratuitous. The violence is very shocking to watch even today, but again it is necessary to the plot to depict the world of a hustler. I'm really glad to see that MIDNIGHT COWBOY is not dated and is still just as affecting as it was in 1969, if not more. I can't recommend this classic enough and I do hope that it continues to find an audience because it really is a very special and unforgettable experience that will not soon be forgotten.<br /><br />PROS: <br /><br />-Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman are both harrowing and amazing to watch. They have never played roles like this before or since and they are completely different from usual. You'll forget who is playing them within minutes! <br /><br />-Beautiful score <br /><br />-Not at all dated or campy like many films of that decade come off as today <br /><br />-Fantastic and fast editing job<br /><br />CONS: <br /><br />-For mature audiences only <br /><br />-The opening scenes are well done, but they could be just a little stronger.
|
positive
|
Lordi was a major hype and revelation in 2007 because they won the Eurovision Song Contest with a (not-so-heavy) metal song called "Hard Rock Hallelujah" and appeared on stage dressed like hideous monsters. But, let's face it, their victory most likely had very little to do with their great musical talents. The Eurovision contest gradually turned into one big political circus over the years and Lordi probably just won because their song finally brought a little change and even more importantly - because their whole act sort of ingeniously spoofed the whole annual event. The absolute last thing Lordi's first (and hopefully last) horror film brings is change and ingenuity. "Dark Floors", based on an idea of the lead singer and starring the rest of the band in supportive roles, is a truly unimaginative and hopeless accumulation of clichés. The immense budget ("Dark Floors" supposedly is the most expensive Finnish film ever) definitely assures greatly macabre set pieces and impressive make-up art, but what's the point where there's no story that is worth telling? The film takes is set in a busy hospital where a bunch of people, among them a father and his young daughter with an unidentifiable illness, become trapped in the elevator during a power breakdown. When the doors open again, the floors are empty and it looks as if the hospital lies abandoned since many years already. Trying to reach the exit, the group stumbles upon several morbid and inexplicable obstacles, like eyeless corpses, screaming ghosts and Heavy Metal monsters emerging from the floors. The only three points I'm handing out to "Dark Floors" are exclusively intended for the scenery and the adequate tension building during the first half of the film. For as long as the sinister events don't require an explanation, the atmosphere is quite creepy, but as soon as you realize the explanation will a) be very stupid or b) never come, the wholesome just collapses like an unstable house of cards. Lordi's costumes never really were scary to begin with (except maybe to traditional Eurovision fans) and, in combination with a story more reminiscent to Asian ghost-horror, they just look downright pathetic and misfit. With all the national myths and truly unique exterior filming locations, I personally always presumed Finland The Land of a Thousand Lakes would be the ideal breeding ground for potentially horrific horror tales, but I guess that's another disillusion on my account.
|
negative
|
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)
|
negative
|
This movie was so weak that it couldn't even come up with good cliches to rip off. I love horror movies and will see practically anything, but if I had it to do over again I would have skipped this one entirely. You may think that I'm exaggerating, but I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely satisfying or interesting about this piece of garbage. Not scary, not funny, not curious, not worth it.
|
negative
|
I don't understand why this movie has such a low rating. It totally deserves more! Sure, it's completely ridiculous, but that's what it was supposed to be. Don't expect cinematic transcendence from a movie about beauty pageant contestants stranded on a Caribbean island! What you should expect is a huge spoof of pretty much every relevant sci-fi, fantasy and block-buster movie in cinematic history, and even references to other spoofers. All completely exaggerated and sometimes totally unnecessary, but that's exactly what makes this movie stand out. If you like parodies, and enjoy say, Leslie Nielsen or Mike Myers, you're gonna love this. I sure did!
|
positive
|
It follows BLOCK-HEADS and A CHUMP AT OXFORD, two films that are hard to top. Not that SAPS AT SEA is a bad film - it is the last good comedy (unless one insists on JITTERBUGS or another of the later films) that Laurel & Hardy made. It's just that it is a toss-off little film, without the crazy destructive crescendo of BLOCK-HEADS or the astounding sight of Stan's "real" personality in A CHUMP AT OXFORD to revel in. At 57 minutes it is shorter than the other two films a bit, but that actually is not a bad point for it. It has just enough time to it to hit the right notes. It's just not as special as the other two.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie work in a factory that manufactures horns. I suspect that there was a bit of Chaplin influence in this sequence (one recalls a similar assembly-line incident in MODERN TIMES only four years earlier). Ollie's nerves finally snap, and he goes on a rampage. He goes home and (naturally) his roommate Stan does not help - Stan has a music lesson with an eccentric professor on his instrument (you've got it - a trombone). After beating up the poor professor, Ollie has problems with the incompetent janitor/engineer (Ben Turpin in a nice brief appearance), and then faces his doctor (Jimmy Finleyson) and his nerve tester (a balloon that inflates as you push air out of Ollie's stomach). Finleyson announces that it is a bad case of "horniphobia", and Ollie needs a vacation with plenty of quiet and goat's milk. They end up going to a ship but Ollie and Stan know nothing about seamanship - so they plan to sleep on the ship. Unfortunately the goat gnaws the rope until it breaks and the ship sails off. Also unfortunately, on board is Richard Cramer, an escaped dangerous criminal. This is not going to be a peaceful vacation.<br /><br />SAPS AT SEA (like A CHUMP) could have been three shorts, one at the factory, one at the apartment, and one on the boat. Each would have been a successful short, and they all make a funny film - but the stitching of the parts together shows. There are some very amusing moments in the film - the discoveries of how Turpin's ineptitude causes various mishaps with water taps and stoves in the apartment; the accidental remarks of building manager Charlie Hall when Stan or Ollie runs by him and asks for directions ("Can you help me find the basement?" asks Stan - "Certainly,you can't miss it - it's downstairs!", says Hall, who realizes what a stupid comment he just made); and Cramer's mistreatment of his two hostage slaves. He calls Ollie "Dizzy" and Stan "Daffy" (an allusion to the Dean Brothers of the St. Louis Cardinal teams of the 1930s - see Dan Dailey's THE PRIDE OF ST. LOUIS). Cramer has the boys cook him up some food - and they make a synthetic meal (boot laces for spaghetti, for instance) to get him sick to be overpowered. When he realizes what they have done, he forces them to eat the meal themselves. Their reactions are brilliant.<br /><br />SAPS AT SEA is not on par with the top line of Laurel & Hardy films, but it is a good film on the whole, and a good conclusion to the best years of their film career (1927 - 1940) when they were with Hal Roach. In the immediate couple of years before it appeared the boys and Roach had serious problems involving production costs (OUR RELATIONS, where Stan was producer on the film), artistic problems (scenes from SWISS MISS were cut meaninglessly), and contractual arguments (leading to Ollie appearing with Harry Langdon in ZENOBIA). Stan and Ollie hit back with THE FLYING DEUCES, wherein the production was not Roach's but Boris Morros'. At last a two picture deal of A CHUMP AT OXFORD and SAPS AT SEA concluded the arguments and problems - and on a high note the boys left Roach. Unfortunately they never found any subsequent film relationship with a producer as satisfactory as this had been.
|
positive
|
This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: "If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here." Thorne is also called "nigger lover" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete "The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are." The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.
|
negative
|
Just about every commentator has mentioned the way that some of the interview footage is superposed over the concert footage in places. This is true, and is the biggest flaw of this film. However, it isn't so often, or so bad, that one shouldn't see this video. If you are a Black Sabbath fan, you have to see this. Aside from having seen Black Sabbath in the Sevnties and early Eighties, I saw them in 2005 or 2006 when they also headlined OZZfest just like in this video. The concert was amazing, and very much like this, which was why I rented this in the first place. It's just about the best geezer-rock out there. Check it out.
|
positive
|
A touching movie. It is full of emotions and wonderful acting. I could have sat through it a second time.
|
positive
|
I really like Miikes movies about Yakuza, this one I saw about 2 years ago and it really fu**ed my head. Never before seen such a sick and twisted thing. The Story is good and the actors do their thing very well. I haven't seen the UK or Japan version, but I have to say that I believe that the German DVD is a bit censored. If you haven't seen the movie already and live in Germany maybe you better look out for a DVD from the Nederlands or Austria. The I-ON DVD contains a lot of very hard and nasty scenes, but at the showdown I felt that something was missing, about one or two very short scenes.<br /><br />All in all a good perverted movie with crazy characters and a high level of violence, that's what I like Miike for!!
|
positive
|
...as valuable as King Tut's tomb! (OK, maybe not THAT valuable, but worth hunting down if you can). I notice no one has commented on this movie for some years, and I hope a fresh post will spark some new comments. This is a film that I remembered only snippets of from childhood, and only saw recently when I tired of waiting for Fox to honour its own past, and hunted down the Korean DVD (in English, but with unremovable Korean subtitles). I won't go through another long plot description - suffice to say that seeing it for the first time in its proper widescreen format left me agape at the vistas and the scope of the film. The matte paintings still hold up, and the palace sets are truly breathtaking. But it is the smaller scale details that lend this film its depth and richness, offering a glimpse into the lifestyles of Egypt's poor as well as its elite. The bazaars, hovels, docks, embalming houses, and taverns are as fascinating as Pharaoh's throne room. While errors abound on the large scale (most notably the dynastic succession), the details are more meticulously researched than the vast majority of Hollywood's films. Visually, it's not without its flaws - the interiors are often too overly lit and colourful to blend seamlessly with the exteriors. Nevertheless, this is a movie that should be credited for being as audacious in the small as it is in the large. Tedious? In parts, absolutely. Overacted? Underacted? Yes, both - though 'understated' might be a more apt description. Too long? Absolutely not. I wished they had spent more time with Sinuhe's experiences in the House of Death, and among the Hittites, and less with his 'romance' with Nefer, though. Historically inaccurate? Yes, that too, but so was Shakespeare. Nobody chastises him for it. I appreciate historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but ultimately it has to be remembered that cinema is theater, not a history lesson.
|
positive
|
Saw this flick on ENCW last nite for the third or fourth time. Enjoyed it so much I ordered the DVD. This really is a standout and of course the first of the Mann-Stewart pairings. More here than the usual oater, although not quite as powerful as The Searchers. Lots of obvious symbolism about achieving manhood but mainly it's the acting by Stewart, his partner Millard Mitchell, Shelly Winters and the Waco Johnny Dean- Dan Duryea. Steve Miller (not The Joker) is interesting as a handsome would be hero who's interested in Lola but too yellow . Like Stewart in The Man Who Killed Liberty Valance, he's practically reduced to putting on an apron and serving his enemies coffee. Decaf no doubt. Tony Curtis from the Bronx Cavalry and Rock Hudson behaving like no Indian I've seen on screen have interesting cameos.<br /><br />Special performances by John McIntire as a too lucky card dealing/gun trader who hangs out at a very low grade Western version of Rick's American Cafe. Nobody wants to spend the night there. Jay C. Flippens out over a kiss from Lola (Winters) and has some nice scenes with Stewart before he gets to Bend of the River and Far Country. Will Geer as Wyatt Earp and the Indian Chief who takes Walter Brennan's teeth from him in Red River are pleasant sightings. This is the kind of western that only Stewart, not Wayne nor Scott could have pulled off. Worth the shot, I repeat. :-)
|
positive
|
This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!
|
negative
|
Why do they keep making trash like this? because it makes money that's why. Eraser is not so much a film but a string of action set pieces strung together. It's well filmed but predictable and it's all been done before, only better. This is basically a Nineties version of 'Commando'.
|
negative
|
This is not a profound movie; most of the plot aspects are pretty predictable and "tried and true" but it was well-acted and made some interesting points about what we might regret (our "mistakes" as the movie calls them) as we look back over our lives. I had not read the book, so didn't know much other than it was the story of a dying woman who has strong memories from long ago that she hasn't really shared with anyone. Thankfully they got a top-notch cast....Meryl<br /><br />Streep's daughter, Mamie Gummer, plays the young Lila, and then Meryl shows up at the end of the film as the old Lila...in addition to an amazing resemblance (duh!) the younger actress did a great job (perhaps not quite up to her mom's caliber, but who is?) All others in this film were fine, although I wish there had been more of Glen Close and thought the Buddy character was alittle too dramatic. <br /><br />This is more of a girls' movie than for the guys, but a good one to see with your mom, or your daughter, and maybe start some dialog going. How hard it is to really know a parent as a "person"!
|
positive
|
"The Luzhin Defence" is, in the foreground, a story of an idiosyncratic chess savant (Turturro) who becomes consumed by the game and, in the background via flashbacks, his boyhood life and the forces which created the man he has become. Factor in good and evil in the forms of his his love interest (Watson) and former "mentor" (Wilson) respectively and you have a plaintive drama laced with poignant and delicately humorous moments mingled with the rich scenic beauty of Italy's Lake Como and the intensity of high chess play. An excellent film for those into period dramas, the auteur's euphemistic chess play metaphor for orgasmic delight is an indication of the subtle wit behind the film.
|
positive
|
This drama is unlike Sex and the City, where the women have a few drinks and share their sexual encounters with each other. Its much more personal and people can relate to it. Its much more engaging and emotional on a new level than other dramas focusing on women and their lives like "Sex and the City, Lipstick Jungle...." <br /><br />Dr. Katie Roden, is a psychologist with a dark secret, she seems much more depressed and guilt ridden than the rest of her 3 friends. She is dealing with the death of her former lover who was her patient while tackling his son's advances on her. Her sombre clothes and empty and cold house convey her inside emotions very well. <br /><br />Trudi Malloy, a widow is battling issues with "letting go" of her dead husband from 9/11. And when a handsome stranger, Richard shows an interest in her she is suddenly forced to do a reality check by her friends who suggest that she gets back into dating business. The ridiculous and embarrassing courting scenes between Richard and Trudi are totally funny! It is interesting to note that Richard asks her out the day she gets a millions from the 9/11 board for her husband's death..lets see what his intentions are <br /><br />Siobhan Dillon, a lawyer is fed up of her husband's love making tactics which only involve "baby making" (as they are having trouble conceiving) and she quickly falls for her colleague who offer his "services" a little too willingly to her and she does not hesitate for long!It will interesting to see whether she will continue her affair or patch up with her husband (played by Raza Jeffrey) Jessica, a real estate business woman is single and is straight, until she organizes a lesbian wedding and has an affair with one of them. Her character is shown as a bold and provocative woman who before her lesbian encounter is having sex with a "married man", her colleague. Lets see where her character venture to....<br /><br />The beauty of this drama is that we are shown 4 totally different women with different scenarios, whose ambitions and inhibitions are shown. Its also a good thing that the drama reveals the fact that sometimes friends lie to each other to be "safe"!
|
positive
|
The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.
|
negative
|
Ernst Marischka, one of the most respected Austrian directors of that time, made films full of beautiful scenes, delicate love and with respect to all that is precious in life. <br /><br />Nowadays, if people should hear about him, they associate the name of Marischka with SISSI trilogy (1955,1956,1957). However, he made other excellent films like DAS DREIMADERLHAUS (1958), EMBEZZLED HEAVEN (1958) and definitely this one, MADCHENJAHRE EINER KONIGIN showing the young years of queen Victoria. Although it deals with a slightly different theme than SISSI films, I do not see many differences between this movie and SISSI. They are strikingly similar.<br /><br />The movie is almost identical. The style, the music, the photography. In fact, the crew are almost the same. Anton Profes, Bruno Mondi!<br /><br />The cast... Romy Schneider's one of the first main roles. It was a lovely introduction to her role of Sissi since this film was made one year before the first part of the trilogy about the Austrian empress. It is also a film where Romy plays with her mother, Magda Schneider. But Ernst Marischka was not the first director who cast Romy to play with her mum. Romy's debut, WENN DER WEISSE FLIEDER WIEDER BLUHN (1953) was her performance with her mother, too. Therefore, there were some voices that Romy began her Austrian career on the bases of her mother's fame. Indeed, there is some truth in it.<br /><br />Again, like in SISSI, this film shows love very gently. Victoria meets Prince Albert in a little inn in Dover. Their sympathy is based on pure exaltation in dance and gentle smiles. And now...? What would it be showed like? Only sex... But is it the only thing love is based on?<br /><br />I am grateful to Ernst Marischka for these movies. They had a soul and a message. Some people may call them kitschy, but I will never give up admiring these films. They are IMPRESSIVE!!! UNFORTUNATELY, HIGHLY UNDERRATED!
|
positive
|
Those who love Elivra as I did in her late night movie hostess duties will love this movie - she is just plain cool - her car is great, and she is a bit of a Transylvanian Dolly Parton - she is so innocent and naive at times - and sexy all of the time - plus, more than a touch of Mae West -<br /><br />The sets are well done as well, and the comic cast is great, with Edie McClurg at her usual best - plus Sally Kellerman as Patty is hilarious. Any time I have to crunch something for a topping, I will think of how Elvira crunches the potato chips -<br /><br />This movie is one to be watched again and again - just for the fun of it. Now I have to get the sequel to it, Elvira's Haunted Hills, and see if it lives up to this one ----
|
positive
|
I'm not here to tell you "Armored" is Kubrickian, Hitchcockian or Fellini-esquire. Nope. Referenced directors are more like Don Siegel ("Charlie Varrick") and Walter Hill ("The Warriors"). Those two helmers didn't fool around with niceties like putting women in their movies. No skirts need apply. They unapologetically made guy movies. Guns, lots of guns. Men met violent death with a twitch of the jaw. Their movies were like a sap to the head. You want a friend? Get a dog.<br /><br />"Armored" is so a guy movie. Dueling armored trucks? Bloody gunshot wounds? Exploding money? If that doesn't get the lizard part of your brain excited, then stay away.<br /><br />At 88 minutes, "Armored" is all muscle without an ounce of fat. We meet six security guards who drive armored trucks, three per truck. The six, led by Matt Dillon, scheme up a fake hijack involving two trucks. Their mission one day is to deliver $42 million from the federal reserve (I think). The idea is to drive both trucks to a warehouse, stash the cash, then stage a hijack. Sure, the cops will suspect them, but if they stick together they'll get through it.<br /><br />Trouble is, one of the six, played by Columbus Short, is a holdout. At first. But he faces eviction. And he's the guardian for his messed up younger brother. He needs cash bad.<br /><br />Matt Dillon cajoles, pleads, persuades the holdout. No blood on anyone's hands. A clean getaway. All good, no bad. You'll be rich forever. Blue skies smiling at you ...<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Everything goes to hell, of course. It's one damned thing after another and the stakes keep going up. And it almost all happens claustrophobically inside an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Los Angeles. In fact, the movie goes out of its way to project a backdrop of industrial urban decay. I happen to like industrial urban decay.<br /><br />Kudos to Matt Dillon, who plays the top bad dog. He goes from charming to disappointed to frustrated to outraged to totally effing insane in the course of the movie. Love that guy.<br /><br />Also, credit is due to the menacing, throbbing, blistering and totally sinister electronic soundtrack by John Murphy. I am guessing he's heard a few Tangerine Dream records.<br /><br />Also, it's surprising that this is a PG-13 movie. I caught one one! f-bomb in this entire movie about violent tough-guy robbers. On some level, I like that. Take the kids.<br /><br />The director is Nimrod Antal, a Hungarian who made a fine noir set in the Budapest subway system called "Kontroll." Screenwriter is an out-of-nowhere guy called James V. Simpson.<br /><br />A lot of the people in this movie are just starting out. I am willing to bet the esteem given to this movie will rise as time goes on and these filmmakers advance in their careers.
|
positive
|
I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like. <br /><br />One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate. <br /><br />There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.
|
negative
|
RKS after the success of GHAYAL started work on this film which was a comedy The film was in making for 3 years and released finally in 1994 but didn't work for some reason Before this film, DAMINI(93) released and did well <br /><br />The film is a mad comic film like most Priyadarshan films nowdays but it is funny and well handled The film has a proper plot unlike today's films and makes you laugh most characters became famous, be it Crime master gogo(Shakti Kapoor), Paresh Rawal and others<br /><br />The film keeps you laughing throughout it's run time though being too slapstick and overdone yet it's one of the funniest films<br /><br />Direction by RKS is very good Music is good<br /><br />Amongst actors Aamir steals the show and delivers his funniest performance, this was his first out n out comedy Salman does well but looks amateur front of Aamir, yet does a good job and their chemistry is delightful Karisma is annoying and sounds like a child Raveena is adequate Paresh Rawal is too funny in both roles, Shakti Kapoor is hilarious in his over the top act Shehzad Khan(dubbed by Ajit) is very good and Viju Khote too is funny rest all are good too
|
positive
|
I think that most of the folks who have posted comments on this movie don't understand how to watch a movie and/or have little sense of elegance. First, to assess a movie you need to understand the extent to which everything in the film works together. Modern sensibilities demand great drama. No, I don't mean great setting of characters and plots, but they seem to demand emotional trajectories that are greatly tragic or greatly comedic. This is a subtle movie. Its beauty lies in its subtlety (not to be confused with simplicity). Neither the story nor the characters are simple in this movie. It is a beautifully filmed movie that makes the most of combining sensuousness, politics, human weakness, venality...you name it. The world it's set in would be alien and not understood today...a world where if you have it you have to flaunt it NOW and LOUDLY, even if you only think you have it.<br /><br />Many people today don't understand that Victorian society wasn't really Victorian as people understand that term today.<br /><br />This movie helps set the record straight.
|
positive
|
This is a Laurel & Hardy comedy short with some great and funny moments but overall the movie relies a bit too much on just one comical premise.<br /><br />The comical premise this movie mostly relies on is very simple; Stan Laurel not wearing any pants. Laurel plays a Scottish naive young person who arrives in America in full kilt. For some reason he gets the center of attention because of this and his uncle played by Oliver Hardy thinks because of this that its time to put some pants on Philip.<br /><br />Its humor is well executed but the main premise also gets a bit tiresome after a while. Although the movie definitely still has its comical great moments, it at the same time is also far from the best of the many Laurel & Hardy comedy shorts that are still around. The movie is simply too simple to be considered one of the greatest, although it definitely is most fine executed all, for most part.<br /><br />Great good clean fun, just nothing too remarkable or memorable all.<br /><br />7/10
|
positive
|
Set in the near future a dark stranger walks into some southern American city plagued by zombies. Settling with a group of friendly face inhabitants our stranger learns the harsh realities of city life. There are two groups of people; the upper classes who dwell safely behind the concrete walls of the city being provided by, at the right price, the state police. Then there are our friendly face inhabitants. These lower class folks live along side the zombies. There only means of survival is to trade goods, which they forage for during the day, with the police in exchange for tins of food. Our stranger discovers why his world is plague by zombies. A new dietary pill that suppressed the craving for carbohydrates was the foundation. The human race's desire to shed fat caused the down fall of society as we know it. These pills increased the desire for protein i.e. meat, even the pet poodle. However, there was one more grave side affect, after death people became reanimated with an even stronger craving for protein namely human flesh.<br /><br />With what I feel is an imaginative introduction I felt that this film many realise some inventive material. What better way could explain the cause of the zombie race than by a contemporary idea of people's desire to make any sacrifice to change their body without the hard work of the gym? However, the imagination of this film soon stopped after this exposition. This film falls into the old trap of 'I can not imagine what the world will be like when society collapses'. When you watch this film you do not escape to a different world as you do when you watch Planet of the Apes (original), Alien, Mad Max or Texas Chain Saw (original). In this film the alternate society is define by people with hair dyed orange and green. Face paint and charity shop leather jackets. There is no harshness about life in this alternate society, just healthy faces and over made-up zombies. Films should allow you to escape not remind you that you need to clear out your wardrobe and take your old cloths to the charity shop.<br /><br />Forget about some of the pitiful acting, or the over made-up zombies. This film fails because it is too polished, too congenial and too predictable. I have watch films like this since the early eighties. If you are going the make a film of this nature I suggest you need to watch again such films as Dawn of The Dead (original and remake), Threads or Fulci's Zombie to see and experience that feeling of desperation in a devastate society.
|
negative
|
Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get "better" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good.
|
negative
|
I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.<br /><br />This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.
|
negative
|
This movie was a modern day scarface.It had me on my toes.This movie is one of those rare epic films that makes you want a sequel.I especially liked Damian Chapa his performance deserved an academy award,which he deserved for his performance in blood in blood out.The only thing I didn't like was the behind the scenes because it didn't show the intensity that the movie had,and i would have like to have seen less narrated scenes.But the movie was great and it is in my top ten movies of all time.Plus the acting was great there wasn't a bad scene in the movie,I loved it ,Jennifer Tilly was perfect as well as all of the cast.I can't see how anyone wouldn't like this movie it was a great.Definitely a must see.
|
positive
|
this movie has a decent story in my opinion,very good fight scenes but i was a little bit disappointed by the end of the movie.i think that it was a way better if lydie denier knew karate also or if she knew to use some weapons,her character has become more interesting too and she was a decent opponent to cynthia.i think when the director filmed the final 'battle' between cynthia&denier he wanted to finish the movie earlier so he didn't care how the end was going to be.all in all i think that fans of cynthia rothrock will be very satisfied watching this movie.it's not like 'yes,madam'! or sworn to justice but it was entertainment enough and cynthia looks awesome in this movie so my rate for this movie is a solid 8/10
|
positive
|
This 1955 Producers' Showcase version of the musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin has the benefit of showcasing most of the original Broadway cast, including Kathleen Nolan as Wendy, who was more natural an actress than the girl they hired for the 1960 color televised play. It's a shame that most people won't sit through anything black and white anymore because in many respects this earlier production - which doesn't even show up in the IMDb listings when you put "Peter Pan" into the search engine! - is superior to the cutesier color version most people have watched. I obtained the original on disc and then did work on it to make it look and sound better digitally. Now when I put the 1960 color version on it looks garish in comparison. I suspect Mary Martin herself no doubt preferred this original 1955 b/w Producers' Showcase televised version.<br /><br />As an added plus the disc I got also showed the original commercials and opening promo. How far away the 1950's seem now - such an innocent time compared to today. I miss it.
|
positive
|
Hi folks<br /><br />Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.<br /><br />The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.<br /><br />Just a waste of time thinks ...<br /><br />JAKE Scorpio
|
negative
|
Yes, indeed we have a winner- a winner in best dumb-action-movie!<br /><br />The only reason I chose to vote a 10 for this movie is because it's so incredibly bad-made that it actually becomes funny.<br /><br />"Night Hunter" is basically about Jack Cutter, a Vampire hunter (Vampire hunters have been in his generation for centuries, apparently), and his mission, being that he has to kill the last remaining Vampires.<br /><br />This movie contains one of the cheesiest scenes I have ever seen in my life. Not to mention the really bad gun-shooting scenes. When people are shot in this movie, blood splatters- thick as ketchup all over the place, this makes the movie seem so cheap and lame that you just lose interest. A constant shaking of the camera is what annoys me the most during the fight-scenes. This is, I suppose, done to create an "action-effect", though in my opinion it gives no effect whatsoever. Its completely ridiculous! <br /><br />All stunt-scenes are done extremely badly. E.g a scene where the dead Vampire-leader gets thrown off a roof. When the corpse hits the ground, it bounces like a wobbly rubber-doll. A scene where Jack sniffs the ground, getting a vision was so lame it got me laughing hysterically.<br /><br />Lame music, cheesy scenes, bad acting and plain dumb filming techniques are obviously the functions that make this movie such a malfunction. To state that this is a good movie would be the same as stating that nuclear bombs are good for humans. Clearly those of you who say that this is one of the best action-movies, haven't seen many in your life.<br /><br />This is basically a B-class vampire-action-movie that deserves 0/10 but which I'll give 10/10, just for its ability (being the lousiest action-movie I have ever seen)of making me laugh and because I just can't live without it.
|
positive
|
Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".<br /><br />For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.<br /><br />Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.<br /><br />My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.<br /><br />Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.<br /><br />Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.<br /><br />Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:<br /><br />1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)<br /><br />2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.<br /><br />3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.<br /><br />4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.<br /><br />Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.
|
negative
|
You could see the final outcome from a mile away.All the signs were there....the prom,the liquor,the fast ride,the distraction of the females.... A good commercial for seatbelt usage,and later model vehicles that sit the passengers further back from the windshield.Also,the ending is rather anti climatic,as the Ford Econoline van barely suffers a crease across its nose after hitting a bridge abuttment at high speed (highly unlikely).More damage to the van would have made it a little more believable.And why do these films always take place during/after a prom? Is it a case of once you survive the prom,you will be good for life? More than anything else,it shows the lack of policing the prom for liquor,and not keeping tabs on the MINORs who are leaving the dance for a joyride.
|
negative
|
The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!
|
negative
|
Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...
|
negative
|
I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.<br /><br /> Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.<br /><br /> Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.<br /><br /> An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.<br /><br /> The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!<br /><br /> Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.<br /><br /> About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.<br /><br /> My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.
|
negative
|
I just viewed Jean Renoir's wonderful film, French Can Can. It is a visual delight and a great entertainment. The recently produced Moulin Rouge pales by comparison. I didn't quite get all of the praise that the recent movie received. Now I'm convinced more than ever, that my appraisal was correct after seeing a master film maker like Jean Renoir's version of the same story. He succeeded in getting great performances out of his entire cast, and the great French actor, Jean Gabin was in rare form. The dance sequence near the end was one of the most exciting one I'd ever seen. It was long, but I didn't want it to end. This film deserves to receive more recognition than it's got.
|
positive
|
The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of "The Descent", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.<br /><br />From the very first moments of "The Cavern", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through "Pulse". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.<br /><br />The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.<br /><br />Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.<br /><br />If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.
|
negative
|
I have been watching this show since I was 14 and I've loved it ever since. I love this show because it's just plain funny! You will enjoy this show a lot because it shows something new and funnier everyday and my favorite part is when Benny always has her last comments on George after every punchline about his fat giant head.*laughs* I would laugh and I'd watch it with my friends at home it'd be like we were watching a funny movie but short. Love George Lopez. Funny, talented,funny,spectacular. This is a cool-funny-family comedy series enjoyable to everyone and you will definitely enjoy it--I did! And if you haven't watched it yet I suggest that you start watching because you wouldn't want to stop watching it. Even though there aren't anymore brand new episodes I still enjoy the re-runs. Still funny. Never wears off. <br /><br />9/10
|
positive
|
I just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.<br /><br />I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.<br /><br />Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.<br /><br />Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself.
|
negative
|
Such a BS movie. It's just some stupid anti-Russian propaganda, with a completely BS plot, not in any way related to the book. <br /><br />It looks like the production team got more money from the people who ordered the movie, than they will ever be able to get from selling the movie. The plot of the movie includes references to some of the real recent events in Russian and other parts of Eastern Europe, but puts them in such way that has nothing to do with reality. It looks like the movie is a brainwashing instrument, which helps to portray Russia as a place populated by evil people that always dream about killing someone. <br /><br />An of course there are hundreds of stupid mistakes like using the map of USSR instead of Russia when running news reports, showing a crowd with Ukrainian flags and commenting that it's Russian elections, etc. <br /><br />Also there are many bizarre episodes (i.e. a character runs though the Red Square in Moscow and in a second he is in downtown Sophia, Bulgaria).
|
negative
|
Hilarious, Sellers at his funniest ... a shame you can't get this on video, or even see it on TV anymore ... I'd love to get a good copy somewhere. Maybe it's tied up in court on some legal issue, but a truly riotous hospital farce with Sellers as crooked administrator.
|
positive
|
There's an inexhaustible hunger for "basic training" movies, so it's surprising that this one got so little notice when first released. Looks likely to have a well-deserved second life on DVD/VHS.<br /><br />Tigerland isn't uniformly great by any means, there are some terribly cliched characters (especially the portrayal of the NCO's, makes you long for the return of Lee 'Full Metal Jacket' Ermey) but the lead performance of Colin Farrell is the stuff of instant stardom. Charisma to burn and a role any actor would kill to get.
|
positive
|
I am still waiting for years a new DVD issue of this marvelous film. I own a beta max recording with FRENCH language. Unfortunately, MGM omits the french track on his recent DVD... Just English spoken an french subtitles...I don't know how make MGM to be advised: I wrote emails to them but, of course, no answer. If I insist, it's because exceptionally, the dubbing track in french was spectacular, funny, well written etc... George C. Scott acting is always outstanding and, for people born like me during the 50ies, Diana Rigg represents something very different than Madonna (for example). Thanks for help... Kind regards...
|
positive
|
I checked this out as an impulse when browsing through the movie store and couldn't have been any more pleasantly surprised! My mom and I watched this film together, and we thoroughly enjoyed it. It isn't the typical "chick-flick" with a sappy love story and tears all the way through, but it definitely touches a nerve in the twist at the end. It's an ending where, although unexpected and tragic, the movie's overall effect is not harmed by it. I think Reese Witherspoon was a great actress even in this film, her debut, and this is definitely worth watching! I didn't recognize many of the supporting actors, but they all play their important supporting roles well. "The Man in the Moon" is such an believable story about a young teenager falling in love for the first time. Most women can definitely relate to everything-from Witherspoon's words, her subtle glances, and her not so subtle emotions (raging like the typical teenage girl). While she's playing a character confused about love, she does not come across as silly and immature, which was much appreciated considering many movies today.
|
positive
|
End of Days is one of the worst big-budget action movies I've ever seen. Muddling direction, meandering script loaded with lame dialogues and gaping plot holes, rapid-fire MTV-style editing and poor acting all the way.<br /><br />That's not to say End of Days isn't watchable. The movie kept me interested because I found Ah-nuld's latest action flick laughably stupid for being so inept and silly when it comes to logic. Without the sense of logic the movie dies quicker, which is why End of Days deserved a huge drop of box office reception in its second week after the opening in the U.S.<br /><br />I won't go into the details explaining why End of Days violates the law of movie logic, but here are several problems with this movie:<br /><br />(SPOILER)<br /><br />After the Devil walks out, the restaurant explodes without any trace as to how he did it. No snapping finger, no tampered energy gas to ignite the fire, nothing. How could this happen?<br /><br />Arnold and his annoying sidekick Kevin Pollack somehow magically comes up with the name "Christine York" after examining the phrase "Christ in New York" carved on a victim's body, runs the database on the computer and, viola, Christine York, the only person with the exact name in all of New York City! Beyond my suspension of disbelief. <br /><br />How did the characters who have come in contact with Arnold's character turn against him later in the movie? I laughed out loud when I recognized the good-stepmother-turned-evil-stepmother is the same actress who played a nanny in William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Her ironic transition from that film to this was absolutely hilarious if you can imagine.<br /><br />All the mindlessly huge explosions and gunfires. What did you expect in the Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle?<br /><br />The Devil took a man's body comprising of flesh and blood, yet he's invisible to bullets and explosions by healing through that body. Logically, this is impossible.<br /><br />As the Devil demostrates the illusion in the apartment, Arnold's character runs into the solid Christmas tree that supposedly is an illusion and *falls on it* physically.<br /><br />The Devil is capable of punching the person's brains out and twisting a victim's head 180 degree, yet he could not kill Arnold's character as he always intends to.<br /><br />How the Devil's object of desire's parents died and why evil New Yorkers run after Arnold and the object of desire were never explained at all.<br /><br />In the sequence that's a rip-off of Speed, Arnold and the Devil's object of desire manage to escape the subway train wreck by the short distance inside unscathed. This is beyond my comprehension, since the force would be enough to throw Arnold and the object of desire around violently and die from fatal wounds seconds after impact.<br /><br />Arnold suffers the brutal beating from the mob sanctioned by the Devil and put him on the cross to hang against the wall, yet the Devil forgot to take the time and opportunity to kill him for convenience's sake.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, after the Devil took over a man's body, all of a sudden Arnold is his bodyguard??? Is this a coincidence or just an example of bad editing?<br /><br />Arnold's recital of cringe-inducing dialogues in the particularly laughable scenes like "YOU ARE A CHOIRBOY COMPARED TO ME!" are the perfect fodder for MST3K, just as Eraser did with the classic line "You're the luggage!".<br /><br />The whole theory about 666/1999 is downright ludicrous. So are the pseudo-religious babble about the Christian theology involving the end of the world at precisely midnight and the fanatic killers who know the location of the Devil's object of desire. <br /><br />(END SPOILERS)<br /><br />It is highly ironic that End of Days uses the scattered profanities abusing the deity while rambling about Christian theories. The level of violence in the film is excessive and gruesome, and is therefore unnecessary to serve the plot. The director's indulgence of excess is a factor here. He surely doesn't know how to make a coherent action movie from the screenwriter of Air Force One who was only obliged to write the script just for a big sum of money.<br /><br />Hence, End of Days is a worthless film with no redeeming value except for campiness -- Arnold's worst since Hercules in New York. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
|
negative
|
Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.<br /><br />Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.<br /><br />The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.<br /><br />Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.
|
negative
|
"Metamorphosis" hold a tiny bit of cult-value, simply because it was written and directed by George Eastman. This Italian bloke is more or less the personification of male sleaze and starred in pretty much every rancid Joe D'Amato production during the late 70's/early 80's. Wouldn't it be interesting for avid Euro-cult purchasers to own the only movie directed by the guy who walked around bare-butted in "Erotic Nights of the Living Dead" all the time? I thought so! Now, unlike the movies he starred in, Eastman's own "Metamorphosis" is kind of disappointing in the gore & sleaze departments. There are a handful of nasty murders, cheesy monster effects and naked female bodies (a guest appearance by sleaze-queen Laura Gemser!) on display, but it's mainly a talkative movie. The handsome & eloquent Dr. Houseman is on the verge of a scientific breakthrough with his research on human DNA codes when suddenly the university he works for threatens to cancel his funds. He developed a theory to decode genes and block the human ageing process, but if he doesn't come up with detailed reports any time soon, his research will be stopped. So Dr. Houseman does what any intelligent scientist would do and injects the untested serum into his own veins. Needless to say (and like the title implies), he slowly turns into murderous monster that actually ages much quicker! In other words, his research sucked! Like the other reviewers already mentioned, this movie "borrows" a lot of ideas from David Cronenberg's "The Fly" the dramatic romance sub plot included - but doesn't add any originality from its own. The big difference is that you constantly feel connected with Jeff Goldblum's character in "The Fly", whereas Dr. Houseman becomes just another monster that needs to be destroyed as fast as possible. The rapid-ageing-syndrome aspect also reminded me of Ruggero Deodato's sadly underrated giallo "Phantom of Death", only the protagonist in that film inherited the disease and didn't inflict it on himself. The physical deterioration of the carriers is very similar in both films, though. Few scares or excitement to discover here, instead the movie features loads of bad acting, poor lighting, lousy editing and a completely retarded climax to boot. Feel free to skip this one.
|
negative
|
This film isn't a comedy, its an expose. I've always hated dog shows, considering the ridiculous get-ups people put their dogs in and the idiotic names they give them. Hence, the reason for my uncontrolled cackling while watching this film. I get a kick out of something being taken so seriously, even though the gains are small and insignificant. It's like miniature golf, or jump roping championships or the need to set some obscure world record. The acting was much more refined in this film than Waiting for Guffman, and its mainly due to the more fluidity of the characters, who seem more comfortable with their specific acting partners in this film than the previous. Eugene Levy was great, as was Michael McKean and Fred Willard. However, it was the dogs who eventually stole the show. But then again, who wants to see a bunch of humans in a film about dogs anyway.
|
positive
|
I watched this AFTER seeing "Death Tunnel" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.<br /><br />But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the "investigators" and "group leaders" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.<br /><br />As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.<br /><br />Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled "accidental" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said "yep, and its marked suicide." It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.<br /><br />I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.
|
negative
|
Man would expect that a movie shot with an approx. budget of 300,000,000 U$D should at least entertain you for the time you are spending in the cinema actally watching it. "Matrix Reloaded" proves this assumption wrong.<br /><br />"The Matrix" worked out better, despite having apparent holes concerning logic of the story. At least nobody could explain to me why beating up a bot (aka agent) inside a simulation (aka martix) would harm the responsible computer program in any way...<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers made excactly this "agent-bashing" the main thing in "Matrix Reloaded": it's a beat 'em up o-rama. This fighting scenes may be work out sufficient (or even cool) in a 5 sec. trailer, but prolonged for several minutes, apparently being faked, choreographed poorly and repeated over and over again it is nothing more than boring. Despite seeing the promised spectecular stunts there is nothing more than simple low-quality, unimaginative bashing already seen (or better not) in eg. Van Damme 'movies'. The difference of post-production (etherything is 5 times faster, the camera floats around a lot and freezes on certain scenes, and this is repeated for at least 5min) doesn't help here, all this has nothing to do with the very meaning of "martial arts". Beside these 'fights', all actors do refuse to do what they are payed for: acting.<br /><br />What's up besides the fighting scenes? Few except Hollywood routine. This oh-so-multicultural bunch of hippies which sucked in "Waterworld" are recycled as citizen of "Zion" (mans last city on earth), and on the order of Morpheus they start dancing, 'cause this is a good opportunity to show a lot of barely covered tits and butts. The oh-so-popular clichée of the frog aka frenchmen talking with this "je ne sais quoi" dumb accent, who wastes his fortune because of a "liason d'amour" is bravely served. Following this (and unwanted funny) is the fight between Neo and the sinister followers of 'the frog', since it takes place in an Erroy Flynn like enterieur, luckily featuring a lot of mideaval weapons for decoration. For Neo posing with the hellebarde, just add 2 stairs and a lot of statues (for being destructed, thrown over evil guys and the like) and you get 5 more senseless, boring min. of this junk.<br /><br />Whats left to expect? The usual merchandising hell. And "revolutions" which will happen or not - certainly without me.
|
negative
|
First - nick-623, Pearl Harbor was bombed in 1941, not 1942. They didn't have to predict the bombing.<br /><br />Second - did nobody notice these six industrialist/lawyers/whatever were missing for a rather long amount of time? They were killed *before* the surgery took place! Third - how the heck did Lugosi get out of cabs without being seen? Fourth - why did the Japanese not just kill him, instead of putting him in jail with a convenient look-alike companion and his surgical kit? Fifth - oh, what's the use? This movie has a few interesting moments in it, but by the time they explain what's going on, you'll probably have stopped watching. If not, you won't care.
|
negative
|
A somewhat fictionalized biographical portrait of Abraham Lincoln's early years from Director John Ford, concentrating primarily on a trial in which the young lawyer defends two brothers accused of murder.<br /><br />The film offers an interesting portrayal of this important American figure and the film is well made, but seems somewhat incomplete without any of the great moments from his presidency or even his debates with Stephen Douglas. The obvious intent was to portray Lincoln as young man developing the attributes that would make him the great man he would become. But the result for me was that while I admired the portrayal it just wasn't as satisfying as I think it could have been with a greater scope.<br /><br />In the role of Abraham Lincoln we have Henry Fonda who effectively displays a quiet strength. Fonda's performance includes some gangly mannerisms' and other affectations which are fairly effective in presenting a portrayal of Lincoln, particularly when combined with some effective makeup and the costuming which occasionally is a bit to overt.<br /><br />The supporting cast is solid and surprisingly does not include that many of Ford's regular supporting cast (sometimes referred to as his stock company) but we do have Ward Bond one of the most prolific character actors in Hollywood. Bond has appeared in more of the AFI Top 100 Films than any other actor, both the original and revised list. He has also appeared in 11 Best Picture Nominees.<br /><br />The film features one scene that would seem to have inspired a quite similar scene in "To Kill a Mockingbird", where it would be done even better than it is here, even though that scene is one of the most effective in this film.
|
positive
|
10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.<br /><br />It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp
|
positive
|
One of a few movies filmed at Coronado High School in Scottsdale, AZ in the late 80's as well as Just One of the Guys, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Just Perfect (which was a segmented movie played during the Mickey Mouse Club.) Movie is definitely for kids as the previous comments have it pretty right on. <br /><br />Coronado has gone through an overhaul in the past couple of years and many of the buildings seen in this film are now gone. The field where they are playing catch is adjacent to the football field, one of the few areas still there. The internal scenes near the lockers I believe were in the old 200 building.<br /><br />Unless it is playing late at night on the Disney channel it may be a very hard to find flick. How they ever made sequels to this is beyond me.
|
negative
|
After seeing Undisputed 2, I knew what to expect from Isaac Florentine.<br /><br />The Shepherd: Border Patrol is a decent flick (not Van Damme's best, but definitely not his worst.) There is some bad acting from VD's supporting cast, but it makes sense.<br /><br />The storyline and plot has all been done before, so it's nothing new. I mean this is Van Damme. We don't really expect much of an amazing plot do we? So lets talk about what we all want to watch this movie for anyway: the fighting.<br /><br />Without giving anything away, I thought the way the fights were filmed and shot were well done, way better than a few of VD's recent movies such as Second in Command, in which the entire end fight is HORRIBLE. With Florentine behind the camera, and if you've seen Undisputed 2, he seems to know how to photograph fights and enjoys it. A few of the fights in The Shepherd reminded me of VD's older stuff which is what we all want to see. The fights were good, and i said "hah, awesome" out loud a few times. But I was hoping for just a bit more considering how good I thought Undisputed 2 was.<br /><br />Something I found intriguing was VD's daughter in the film, I thought "wow she's kinda hot" come to find out, its Bianca Van Varenberg, JC's real life daughter. I have never seen her before so that was a nice treat.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is not half bad. Yeah the story has been done before but at least JC was attempting to make a good movie. Next time though, add more hand to hand combat! I think He still has what it takes to do another big budget movie...his acting has improved since he's been doing DTV's and he really is in great shape at 47. I don't know about you but I'm one of the ones who thinks that most of his DTV's are actually good with the exception of Derailed. All he needs to do is get back into "bloodsport" shape, and make a martial arts movie...and I think people would respond well even though he's not jet Li. This movie is definitely worth the rental. =)
|
positive
|
this movie is practically impossible to describe. the alternate title "Don't Look Up" is a lot more descriptive. Like most Japanese cinema, the story is not as linear as American. The story revolves around a director who is filming a story about a ww2 deserter. The set is haunted(?) by an actress who died(?) during the filming of a tv show back in the 60s. the director is the ONLY one who saw this show. if you have seen Ringu (the director Hideo Nakata is the same) and liked it, you'll like ghost actress. i loved ghost actress a lot more than ringu. a truly scary and disturbing movie. a 10!
|
positive
|
I saw this movie yesterday, and like most allrdy wrote "i also expected a Steven movie", god i love this guy just because his fighting style is unique and very humerous. In had a little doubts cause i read that "Ja Rule" was playing in it, but i thought hopefully they give him a smal role, so i don't get irritations by watching him. And offcourse the opposite happend, goooooooooooooooooooood steven what the heck were you thinking going to join a sry *** crew like this. Steven was broke and needed cash? bah =( what a big dissapointment. If you like Steven movie, pleaseee skip this one its pure drama, you only get a few special effects that made me vote 3/10. But the "acting?" of ja rule screws up the whole movie aswel for his buddy kurupt with his irritating hood talk.<br /><br />My beer went from tasting fresh to water we do the dishes in. The story didn't had any "good" about it. To me it felt like a 3 year old produced it.<br /><br />Hopefully Steven makes me happy again in a future movie. People this isn't even worth renting simpel as that.<br /><br />To bad and pitty :-)
|
negative
|
Turned out to be a classy production with what must have been a low budget. The variety of characters is amazing, from axe-wielding dwarfs to 7ft ghouls! I enjoyed the relationship between the leads, not overly sentimental but romantic enough to keep the interest going. I also enjoyed the mix of humour (which can be very easy to get wrong, too much/not enough) which meant it didn't get too dark, nor too spoofy. It was a great step up from Eaves' other efforts, Hellbreeder and Sanitarium, in terms of storyline and production. They have a great website which is worth checking out. Can't wait for Bane, if the level of improvement continues, it should be fantastic.
|
positive
|
Entertaining Jim Belushi vehicle, a modern cockeyed version of It's A Wonderful Life. Michael Caine plays a sort-of angel who lets Belush see what life would have been like if he had "made it big". Jim is at his best with a good story and supporting cast; seems like real chemistry between him and Hamilton. Not an Oscar contender but good warm-hearted fun.
|
positive
|
I own this video as well as the concert version of the musical with Patti Lupone and George Hearn with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. George Hearn is fantastic in my book as are Angela Lansbury and the composer, Stephen Sondheim. This musical is operatic in scope and shows much ingenuity in composition. I certainly hope that this VHS becomes available on DVD!! Hearn's performance is spookily sympathetic. The one annoying performance is the young woman who sings the role of Joanna. I believe this performance was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles, rather than on a Broadway stage and am not sure that the minimalist set was utilized in New York, as it was in this production. But I found the scaffolding being dragged across the stage to be quite effective to "portray" the streets of London. I highly recommend this movie.
|
positive
|
I saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all movie.
|
negative
|
I just watched Atoll K-Laurel and Hardy's last movie together and known here in the states as Utopia-on Internet Archive expecting to see some extra footage since the IA version had a running time of 2 hours and 21 minutes. Turns out that it's basically the same version I previously watched on the bargain basement VHS tape from Goodtimes Home Video that ran an hour and 23 minutes (with the exception of no product placement of the Welch's Grape Juice label being inserted when a bottle was shown) with the rest of the running time devoted to dark blank space. While Stan does look like he might be dying anytime soon, he still performs fine physical comedy with Ollie during much of the first 45 minutes or so. Then the plot of taking a yacht with a stowaway and a man with no country aboard-not to mention a charming female French singer also coming to inhabit an uncharted island they all end up on-takes over with eventual complications that pretty much bogs the comedy down and never really recovers despite the familiar ending of Ollie saying for the last time to Stan, "Here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" before Stan cries uncontrollably before the fade out. In other words, if you're a die-hard Laurel and Hardy fan, this movie is recommended for you to see at least once. Anyone else wanting to get familiar with this classic comedy team should seek their earlier work they did for Hal Roach from the '20s up through 1940 when they completed their final Roach film, Saps at Sea. Come to think of it, even some of the L & H Fox flicks (have yet to see the two they made for M-G-M) from the '40s are better than this one...Update-8/29/09: Just watched some missing scenes that appeared in the Italian version on YouTube. Cherie sings in one and has a conversation with the Captain. In another, that Captain's wife pulls a gun on Cherie. In one more, Giovanni explains why he left his country with a flashback scene. Stan is dubbed in high pitch here!
|
negative
|
This is an extraordinary film, that tricks you constantly. It seems to be heading toward cliche at several points, and then something astonishing will happen that genuinely startles. It would give away too much to say much more, but stick with this film and you will be richly rewarded. William Haines is absolutely delightful - he is certainly a star that deserves to be re-discovered. The gay subtext in his relationship with Jack Pickford is amazing - there is even a scene where Haines rubs Pickford's chest (Pickford has a cold). Both actors play this sub-text subtlely and with great depth of emotion, so that there are moments that are very moving. And I never thought I could get so involved in a football match as I did in this movie - and I don't even understand the rules! Also excellent is Francis X. Bushman's son Ralph as Haines' rival for the girl (yes, it's not completely a gay movie). Wonderful silent classic - a great example of Twenties commercial cinema with an edge.
|
positive
|
The way the story is developed, keeps the audience wondering what is the tenant's dark past. We get some clues during the series, but enough to keep us interested in the mini-series. The characters are all believable and I personally felt immersed and surrounded by the story.
|
positive
|
This 'documentary' sheds absolutely no light on what it would be like to be backstage during the Hard Knock Life tour. Granted, I wasn't there, but watching this film didn't make me feel like I was. And for a film like this, that's not exactly a compliment. The whole time I watched it, all I could think was, "What are they leaving out?" When it's all over, the only rapper you feel like you have some insight into is DMX, and that's mainly because he just talks about his dogs. A waste of time.<br /><br />3/10
|
negative
|
This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.
|
negative
|
A series of shorts spoofing dumb TV shows, Groove Tube hits and misses a lot. Overall, I do really like this movie. Unfortunately, a couple of the segments are totally boring. A few really great clips make up for this. A predecessor to such classics like Kentucky Fried Movie.
|
positive
|
One question that must be asked immediately is: Would this film have been made if the women in it were not the aunt and cousin of Jacqueline Lee Bouvier Kennedy Onassis?<br /><br />The answer is: Probably not.<br /><br />But, thankfully, they are (or were) the cousin and aunt of Jackie.<br /><br />This documentary by the Maysles brothers on the existence (one could hardly call it a life) of Edith B. Beale, Jr., and her daughter Edith Bouvier Beale (Edie), has the same appeal of a train wreck -- you don't want to look but you have to.<br /><br />Big Edith and Little Edie live in a once magnificent mansion in East Hampton, New York, that is slowly decaying around them. The once beautiful gardens are now a jungle.<br /><br />Magnificent oil painting lean against the wall (with cat feces on the floor behind them) and beautiful portraits of them as young women vie for space on the walls next to covers of old magazines.<br /><br />Living alone together for many years has broken down many barriers between the two women but erected others.<br /><br />Clothing is seems to be optional. Edie's favorite costume is a pair of shorts with panty hose pulled up over them and bits and pieces of cloth wrapped and pinned around her torso and head.<br /><br />As Edith says "Edie is still beautiful at 56." And indeed she is. There are times when she is almost luminescent and both women show the beauty that once was there.<br /><br />There is a constant undercurrent of sexual tension.<br /><br />Their eating habits are (to be polite) strange. Ice cream spread on crackers. A dinner party for Edith's birthday of Wonder Bread sandwiches served on fine china with plastic utensils.<br /><br />Time is irrelevant in their world; as Edie says "I don't have any clocks."<br /><br />Their relationships with men are oh-so-strange.<br /><br />Edie feels like Edith thwarted any of her attempts at happiness. She says "If you can't get a man to propose to you, you might as well be dead." To which Edith replies "I'll take a dog any day."<br /><br />It is obvious that Edith doesn't see her role in Edie's lack of male companionship. Early in the film she states "France fell but Edie didn't.<br /><br />Sometimes it is difficult to hear exactly what is being said. Both women talk at the same time and constantly contradict each other.<br /><br />There is a strange relationship with animals throughout the film; Edie feeds the raccoons in the attic with Wonder Bread and cat food. The cats (and there are many of them) are everywhere.<br /><br />At one point Edie declares "The hallmark of aristocracy is responsibility." But they seem to be unable to take responsibility for themselves.<br /><br />This is a difficult film to watch but well worth the effort.
|
positive
|
Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
|
negative
|
I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence. <br /><br />In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.<br /><br />John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.<br /><br />We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.<br /><br />After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.<br /><br />One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.<br /><br />I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.
|
negative
|
I thoroughly enjoyed this made for TV movie. I was channel surfing, and came across the start of the movie. Boy am I glad I stopped. This movie has a real hot cast, as well as a semi-believable plot. There's drama, comedy, action, and best of all, the human nature aspect of this film is what makes it great. I hope it comes out on Video, because I will buy a copy. Rating...9 out of 10 stars
|
positive
|
This is the second adaptation of Charlotte Armstrong by Claude Chabrol for the screen:the first was " la rupture" (1970)(from novel "the balloon man" )and it's really a pity no one cares about it.It's Chabrol's sleeper,and I urge any of his fans to see it.<br /><br />"The chocolate" cobweb was not that strong a detective story to begin with.I read it 20 years ago and forgot all about it.The movie promises some good things at first,though,then finally disappoints to a fault.This is a confusing Chabrol movie,mixing elements of the heyday (circa 1969),and a lotta tongue-in-chick stuff coming from the eighties ,the likes of 'poulet au vinaigre",not one particularly memorable work.<br /><br />Part of the disappointment comes from the cast:this is a distressingly poor gathering:Jacques Dutronc plays like a zombie,Isabelle Huppert reveals herself a somewhat limited actress,finally rather vulgar .It worked in "une affaire de femme",it does not here.They are not supported by the young couple :both are bland and unremarkable.Actors from the past,say,Stephane Audran or Michel Bouquet(both in "la rupture") were brilliant and contributed to Chabrol's then unique atmosphere.<br /><br />The story itself is undistinguished:beginning as some kind of "serious" "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille " (besides,a character hints at Etienne Chatilliez's very funny movie),the movie drags on and on as a laughable psychological drama afterwards.We will not congratulate the young female pianist ,who,after all she learned about her wicked hostess,agrees to drive a car along a dangerous road.<br /><br />Because he makes too many movies,Chabrol frequently releases turkeys.One wonder why people who wants to watch one of his movies should choose this one among all his stuff up for grabs.<br /><br />It seems that Chabrol's bourgeoise satire has finally given way to leniency.In "la rupture" the first Armstrong adaptation-an average detective story which Chabrol completely transcended-,you should hear Audran say "they have so much money!".Here ,Chabrol has lost his bite,his strength.
|
negative
|
I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.
|
negative
|
Having read many of the other reviews for this film on the IMDb there is ostensibly a consensus amongst purists that this film is nothing like the books upon which it is based. Upon this point I cannot comment, having never actually read any of the protagonists adventures previously. However, what I can say with certainty, is that it strikes me that many of the said reviewers must have surely undergone a sense of humour bypass; Let's be honest here - this film is just so much fun!<br /><br />OK
..so I must concede the point that the film apparently is not representative of the character/s but let's put this into a clear perspective
..do the same individuals who are carping on about this film also bemoan the fact that the classic 1960's Batman series does not remain faithful to the original DC comic book character? Or perhaps is there STILL unrest in same persons that the 1980 film version of Flash Gordon was too much of a departure from the original series?<br /><br />The point is, yes this film is incredibly camp but that's precisely its charm!<br /><br />Former Tarzan, Ron Ely plays the eponymous hero in this (and bears more than a passing resemblance to Gary Busey to boot!) and is backed up by a great supporting cast who all look to be having a ball with their respective roles. Also look out for a very brief but highly welcome appearance by horror movie favourite Michael Berryman.<br /><br />Best scene? Far too many to choose from but check out the hilarious facial expressions adopted by the waiter when Savage and his men commit the ultimate faux pas of ordering coke, lemonade and milk at a formal occasion! Also the often noted scene near the end of the film wherein Savage tackles his nemesis Captain Seas utilising various martial arts disciplines which are labelled on screen! Priceless!<br /><br />Simply put, the film doesn't take itself at all seriously and is all the more fun for it. Great fun from start to finish! (and you'll be singing the John Phillip Sousa adapted theme song for days afterwards guaranteed!)
|
positive
|
John Landis truly outdid himself when he directed Michael Jackson's THRILLER as a short film. Of course, it's corny, the dialogue is terrible and it all seems way too cheesy, but it's perfect none-the-less.<br /><br />Michael and his date are out at the cinema to view the latest horror flick. When it all gets a little too graphic for the date, she leaves. Michael follows. On the way home, they decide to take a shortcut through the local graveyard. There, it begins.<br /><br />The actual thriller dance is amazing. It's full of those trademark Jackson moves, as well as some memorable zombie moves, too. It doesn't appear rushed at all, nor too long. The whole thing seems movie-like and it really is actually rather scary. Of course, it's one of the most famous music videos of all time, and is probably the greatest music video ever made as well.<br /><br />Overall: Watch it, seriously. Those 13 minutes will be some of the best ever spent staring at a screen. (5/5)
|
positive
|
Tru Calling was good but it could have been great. The concept was intriguing and allowed for seriously strange and frightening story lines that might have been explored in future. Unfortunately the writing and an actor let the show down.<br /><br />The writing wasn't too bad but there were holes. In episode 13, "Drop Dead Gorgeous", an incredibly toxic poison was supposedly used to kill the victim. This was so toxic and killed so quickly the victim had no time to run or even scream for help. Yet there was no plausible explanation for how the killer obtained such a powerful poison.<br /><br />In episode 15, "The Getaway", the off-duty policeman responded unrealistically. In the second diner scene he (meekly) tells the robber to drop the gun and when she doesn't follow the order, and in fact turns the gun in his direction, he allows it to turn into a standoff and then escalate into a hostage situation the very situation he'd been warned about. His response should (would) have been to shoot the robber when she failed to follow his order and upon her turning the gun on him. There are other faults in the stories but I'll leave it with these two examples. In spite of the writing faults I did like the show.<br /><br />The other problem I had was that I just could not accept Eliza Dushku in this roll. In my opinion she is too inexperienced and lightweight to carry this part. She never walked anywhere, she marched; and far too often she came to an abrupt stop on her mark. <br /><br />She also lacked any really emotional facial expression or intonation. She either has a pensive look or a cute smile; rarely are other emotions apparent. When she tries to appear dramatic she begins her line looking away and 'then' turns her eyes to her fellow actor. Or alternatively she begins her line looking at her opposite and then looks away. Both are annoying when done as a replacement for true emotion. An example of her lack of intonation is in episode 20, "Two Weddings and a Funeral", during her second wedding speech is devoid of emotion (eg. hearts in our hearts).<br /><br />I liked all of the other actors in their respective parts and they were all believable. With improved writing and a lead change Tru Calling might have made it.
|
negative
|
It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
|
negative
|
one of the worst films I have EVER seen, but extremely funny (not on purpose though). Every scene that contains anything to do with; aircraft, romance, script or acting is badly messed up.<br /><br />I recommend this film for all pilots, it´s so bad that you should burst into laughter at some point in the film (also see Airport 79:the Concorde, for the same reason).<br /><br />Anyone else, avoid this film like the plague (except for fans of B-movies, of course)<br /><br />enjoy
|
negative
|
Yesterday, I went alone to the cinema, because here in Mexico, most of the times movies from other countries are part of the so called "camára alternativa" (alternative camera). But after I saw this movie, I realized that not all the foreign movies are alternative. Afortunately, this is a good a example. But I have to said that I enjoyed so much this movie.. that at the end I was happy.. this movie is a little spoon of hope in these days. And the main lesson for me.. is that at the end of the day...the love is main force behind us. This is a good option to see a good movie in Spanish...and I have to mention the good music.. specially the main song of the movie.. Cosas que hacen que la vida valga la pena.... Excellent song!!!
|
positive
|
Along with having minor flaws to it, this film is a masterpiece, and most definitely the best war film I've seen. Not the mention it's one of the best films I've seen in all genres. I might have written this for No Man's Land before, but now I think this one's better. It's VERY sad in the ending, and I almost cried after the two shocking scenes that came within 5 minutes close to the film's final. <br /><br />Karel's performance as the main character was fascinating although he's supposed to be a rookie considering his age. This film makes you think a lot, makes you cry (or at least gets you close to it), and makes you hate any kind of war and political BS. The flashbacks to the prison-hospital make the film even more delicious. <br /><br />One tiny flaw about the film is the non-British accents of supposedly British people. Most of the British people on screen were actually British, but how about the ones who are supposed to be British and speak with a foreign accent? That really didn't fit into this adorable film. But it's pretty much the only flaw I've noticed. Effects could also be a bit better but then again, we all remember many films from one particular land that have tremendous FX and absolutely nothing else. <br /><br />Briefly, this film is a total masterpiece and every single individual should see it. If you want to travel to the Czechoslovakia of 40's, and if you want to virtually witness a tremendous amount of emotions at once, this film is for you. If you don't want to do those, this film will make you want to do so.
|
positive
|
What we've got here is a Situation. A man is found to be in distress and people want to help him -- in contrasting ways. At the end they are forced to let it go. You can't fix people. And though in various aspects Reign Over Me is conventionally Hollywood, that message isn't.<br /><br />This story is not about Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler), a man who lost his wife and three daughters in a 9/11 plane who's gone into a nearly psychotic state of PTSS since. It's about what meeting Charlie does to Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), a dentist in New York who was his roommate in dental school and, knowing about his tragedy, spots him on the street and reconnects. Charlie is riding around on a little toy motorized scooter -- a pretty fanciful contraption for negotiating Manhattan traffic -- with big headphones on over a mass of unruly hair. The hair is Sandler's chief prop to show he's deranged. And the use of music as an escape must hit home to every iPod-wielding subway rider.<br /><br />Charlie is a disaster, but paradoxically Alan, stuck with a controlling wife (Jada Pinkett Smith), soon begins to envy him. Charlie is living like an nutty adolescent boy with a huge trust fund (insurance money from the tragedy), and starts dragging Alan off to "hang out," "eat Chinese," buy records, or watch a Mel Brooks marathon at a rep house. Charlie lives in a nice big apartment protected by a mean landlady, redoing the kitchen over and over, collecting old vinyl of Springsteen, the Who, etc., and playing a video game called Shadow of the Collosus on a giant screen in a big empty living room.<br /><br />Charlie's in-laws are deeply concerned about him, but also somehow resentful, as we learn later. Alan has a new patient who is propositioning him. Charlie's desperation makes us see Alan's. Trying to help Charlie partly permits Alan to escape from his own stifling realities but partly just makes him more acutely aware of them.<br /><br />Cheadle and Sandler make an odd couple, but that doesn't matter, because it's convincing that they might both need each other. Charlie is desperate for the companionship of a friend who never knew his family, because to escape his loss, he is pretending he never had one. And so what if as a roommate Charlie slept naked and sleep walked and had terrible musical taste (no Motown)? Alan wants an escape from his tidy, emasculating life. He's under the thumb not just of his wife but of his dental partners, who lord it over him though it's he who set up the practice. They're white, by the way, and he's black.<br /><br />There's also the lascivious patient from hell, who seriously disrupts things at the dental offices, but starts looking different when Charlie comes by and notices she's a babe. His libido seems to be lurking ready to revive at any minute. He's also drawn to the breasts of Liv Tyler, a psychotherapist in the same building as the dentists who starts trying to treat Charlie when he admits he might need help.<br /><br />Sandler's mad scenes are a little too theatrical, as are a lot of the plot devices (in fact this movie feels like a play at more than one point), but he has several monologues where he expresses his sorrow in ways that are deeply touching.<br /><br />Charlie's not just delusional and sad, but dangerous and violent, and all these efforts to help him start to backfire. The movie is admirable in the way it conveys a sense that people can't be made right. This is an interesting movie -- sometimes a touching one -- and it's the first time 9/11 has been dealt with in terms of survivor suffering. But there is an element of comedy that seems tasteless at times, many of the people are too broadly drawn, and the overly grand Hollywood interiors have dreadful décor; only the Manhattan streets look real. There's a courtroom scene that is preposterous, and Donald Sutherland is a judge who's too good to be true. Alan's family problem is resolved too easily with a phone call. And yet this is worth watching for the acting -- the control and subtlety of Cheadle, and Sandler in a serious role almost as good as the one he had in P.T. Anderson's 2002 Punch-Drunk Love, though that's clearly a better movie, in fact a much better one.
|
positive
|
This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.<br /><br />The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.<br /><br />Overall I give it a 2.
|
negative
|
A Turkish Bath sequence in a film noir located in New York in the 50's, that must be a hint at something ! Something that curiously, in all the previous comments, no one has pointed out , but seems to me essential to the understanding of this movie <br /><br />the Turkish Baths sequence: a back street at night, the entrance of a sleazy sauna, and Scalise wrapped in a sheet, getting his thighs massaged. Steve, the masseur is of the young rough boxer ( Beefcake!) type , and another guy, a bodyguard? finishes dressing up. Dixon obviously hates what he sees there and gets rough right away. We know he has a reputation for roughing up suspects. Good cop but getting out of control easy. Why is it that he hates them so much ? <br /><br />Could it be that he hates himself. This part of himself he inherited from his father ? That dark side that could lead him right at the end of the sidewalk, into the gutter ? What if that dark side lurked within a "closet" ? Remember : whenever Dixon meets Scalise ( 3 times), the guy is lying on a bed, and he only has men around him for company ( the irony of the " Girls" poster pinned up on the wall near his bed !).<br /><br />Scalise acts funny: affected manners, cranking his neck arrogantly, defiant, shoving his inhalator ( poppers ?) into his nostrils each time he talks to Dixon. Dixon, with a vengeance, is bent on pinning down Scalise who seems not to understand : "I never saw a man so full of hate as you. I consider it almost humorous the way you came after me alone. " Four years jumping at me as if I was somebody special! Why? "<br /><br />Because Scalise is someone special indeed : he is the direct inheritor of Dixon's father : " Your father liked me", "Your father set me up in business". He stands as Dixon's criminal brother, his dark side incarnate. And to top it all, he prefers the company of men. Dixon knows it well :" Who killed him (Paine)? You or one of your playmates?" Playmates ! Notice how each time they meet, Dixon manhandles Scalise: he picks the address-book out of his jacket, slaps his face, punches him. Scalise : "I warn you not to touch me! " . Dixon's homophobia is obvious. Or put it different : his unexpressed homosexuality . Dixon, aka Dixon's kid, is the son of a thief. In reaction to this, he decided to become a cop, a good one, but there is something of the criminal in him, a dark side: he is a violent copper, a murderer, a liar. Besides, he is not married, brings "a dizzy blonde" to his familiar eat-out place every now and then, but nothing else. The waitress scoffing says that he doesn't know how to make love to a woman. Dixon has a deep feeling of guilt and hates himself for those reasons." A hood and a mobster like his old man. Blood will tell". Finally, in order to achieve redemption, Dixon decides to sacrifice himself : if he gets his alter ego Scalise to kill him, he will free himself from the guilt and free the girl and her father too.<br /><br />The end of the movie brings us back to the opening sequence : Scalise is pushed in the gutter and Dixon deserves the right to walk the sidewalk and wins the love of the dame. He is straight at last.<br /><br />The unspoken theme of the movie could very well be that of a man who in order to cover his repressed feelings, wants to experience a woman's love ( Jean Douchet)<br /><br />(These notes owe a lot to the film commentary by Jean Douchet in the French DVD edited by CarlottaI
|
positive
|
The movie doesn't take itself seriously, and if you follow its lead you're going to have a lot of fun (as long as you don't mind your murders served up really bloody, and your horror topped with extra cheese)!<br /><br />This film winks an eye at every horror fan, and then gives them the finger. It knows it sucks, and because of that, it's far and away the best of the "Child's Play" series. <br /><br />It plays up the "stoopid humor" angle so well, you find yourself doing more than just laughing AT it, but WITH it. And, trust me, the whole time you're laughing, it's laughing back atcha.<br /><br />
|
positive
|
An absolutely wretched waste of film!! Nothing ever happens. No ghosts, hardly any train, no mystery, no interest. The constant and BRUTAL attempts at comedy are painful. Everything else is pathetic. The premise is idiotic: a bunch of people stranded in the middle of no-place, because their train was held up for less than 3 minutes. What? And the railroad leaves them no place to stay, in a heavy storm? I think not. Oh, they can walk 4 miles across the dead-black fields. umm, yeah. Sure. Or, they can force themselves on the railroad's hospitality, and stay at the 'haunted' train station. A station which proved to be nothing but DEADLY BORING, utterly without ghosts, interest, or plot.<br /><br />So very terribly dull that this seems impossible.<br /><br />This ought to be added to the LOST FILMS list !! aargh !!
|
negative
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.