review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name. | negative |
This is your standard musical comedy from the '30's, with a big plus that it features some well known '30's actors in small fun cameo's.<br /><br />There is not much to the story and basically the movie is all about its fun and 'no-worries' overall kind of atmosphere, with a typical Hal Roach comedy touch to it. Appereantly it's a 'Cinderella story' but I most certainly didn't thought of it that way while watching the movie. The story gets very muddled in into the storytelling, that features many different characters and also many small cameo appearance, when the main characters hit the Hollywood studios.<br /><br />Of course the highlight of the movie is when Laurel & Hardy make their appearance and show some of their routines. It's like watching a movie and getting a Laurel & Hardy short with it for free. Also Laurel & Hardy regular Walter Long makes an appearance in the routine and James Finlayson (without a mustache this time) as the director of the short.<br /><br />It's certainly true that all of the cameo's and subplots distract from the main plot line and character but in this case that is no problem, since its all way more fun and interesting to watch than the main plot line and the shallow typical main character.<br /><br />The movie is most certainly not any worse than any of its other genre movies from the same time period, though the rating on here would suggest otherwise.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
terry and june in my mind, is a all time classic, along the ranks with bless this house with the late sid james and the late diana coupland, but terry scott will be sadly missed even tho he passed away in 1994. i have all the dvds upto press and i look forward to getting all 9, also would be nice to see "happy after ever" released on DVD<br /><br />june whitfield is still going strong and terry scott will always live on in my memory<br /><br />terry scott r.i.p. there aren't many comedies today that i can think of that will stay in the legends list and yes the middle class bit does get on some peoples wicks but i don't mind, i think it would be brilliant to see some celebration of the life of terry scott | positive |
I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.<br /><br />The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.<br /><br />They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.<br /><br />I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".<br /><br />Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation! | positive |
Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.<br /><br />The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography. | negative |
This movie is a re-write of the 1978 Warren Beatty movie, "Heaven Can Wait", but it is written for the stand-up comedic style of Mr Rock. The premise remains the same: Lance Barton, (Rock) is taken before his life time is up and works a deal with God's representative, Mr King, to come back to earth as someone else. As in Beatty's movie; he chooses the murdered Charles Wellington, a rich white man, all because he fancies Sontee Jenkins (Regina King) who happens to turn up at Wellington's house during the murder. The role of Mrs Wellington and her lover suffers in this remake and the idea to turn an aged white multi-millionaire into a stand up black comedian who tries to woo Sontee simply does not work. Also the intercuts used to show Rock as Wellington and then as the real 'white' Wellington, fail miserably. Improvements could have been made to the original Beatty plot - which in itself did not masterfully portray the life-after-death idea - but they certainly were not to be found in "Down To Earth". | negative |
I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.<br /><br /> | negative |
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer. | negative |
I was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.<br /><br />It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.<br /><br />The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.<br /><br />The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.<br /><br />It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations. | negative |
I seem to remember a lot of hype about this movie when it came out, but had avoided seeing it throughout the years. I wish I'd waited longer. Maybe this movie was funny in 1988, I don't know. I was younger then, but it didn't seem like the world was that different. Michelle Pfeiffer, lovely as she is, is never convincing. Mercedes Ruehl not only chews scenery, but stuffs it in her cheeks like a gerbil to save for later. Dean Stockwell is about as convincing as a mob boss as James Gandolfini would be as principal dancer for the Bolshoi. And Matthew Modine demonstrated the most pronounced case of delayed puberty I've ever seen. All in all, it's not bad enough to make you want to pluck out your eyes with a melon-baller, but it's not far off. | negative |
This is one of those Film's/pilot that if you knew BattleStar Galactica it helps, but isn't necessary. What makes this even more believable of a story than BSG is that this isn't something so far away in the future. This has such a depth to it that it is quite astonishing it was not released theatrically. The leads could not have been chosen better in such experienced & quite talented actors. Eric Stoltz is superb as the father who will do anything to be re-united w/his daughter however real or not she is & he'll do it no matter the cost. Paula Malcomson of "Deadwood" fame is terrific as his wife as well. You are not sure completely of his motives whether it's love or money or both, but that is what makes this pilot even more intriguing. I see a star in the making of Zoe played by the relative unknown Alessandra Torresani & her performance. Esai Morales is terrific in his desire to see his loved one again & just how wrong to be even considering what he wants more than his moral objections. I didn't think this would be a good idea when it was announced but from the pilot alone I am thrilled to see how we got to the BSG stage story. It's great to see Adama as a child already being affected & influenced by the different sorts of Robots starting to permeate life at this stage. I just hope that they can keep up the stories so we can figure out even more how they got the the Humanoid typed robots. This is an almost perfect pilot & I hope they can keep up the fantastic storytelling. Even the Visual effects are better than most of the garbage you see on the big screen. If you haven't gotten into BSG, @ least try this & I'll bet you become a fan & will want to see how the BSG story came to be. | positive |
Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.<br /><br />This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it. | negative |
When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness. | negative |
This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch | negative |
A haunting piece that the discerning horror film fan will fall upon with gratitude. Keep your Freddys and your Jasons -- this film is in the same company as "The Haunting" (the original). Lyrical and truthful, it stays with you long into the night, much like those terrifying CBS Radio Mystery Theatre shows. A smart rent. | positive |
This film has the guts to suggest that it might be best to simply accept your life as it is, and keep smiling anyway. As one who is more excited by the idea of taking charge of one's life and moving forward, I felt slapped in the face, but that's okay: I don't have to agree with a movie to love it and respect it. Great acting by Streep and Hurt, and everyone else really, and some wonderfully quirky scenes. A serious film. And take a hanky. | positive |
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.<br /><br />A travesty. | negative |
First of all, I have to start this comment by saying I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan. I think it's the greatest horror series ever. For me, Freddy is the boogeyman! Of course, Freddy's Dead, which tried to be the last chapter back then, is a weird movie. It doesn't have the same atmosphere than the previous films. Freddy has a lot of screen time. Some think it makes him less scary, which I do agree. And that's, in my opinion, exactly the point. This movie exists so we can know Freddy a little better, who he is, who he were, how he became the man haunting our dreams. For some people, it's a bad thing, it's better if we never know because it's scarier not to know why evil is evil. Obviously those people won't like Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. To truly enjoy this one, you have to see things differently. It's not about a strange guy hiding in the bush of your dreamland waiting to scare the hell out of you. This was the first one, and it was awesome. As the years passed by, Freddy killed more and more people, and nobody could ever get rid of him for good. Now it's time to learn about the nature of this evil, the psychological aspects of Freddy's realm of terror. Beside the story of Freddy's past, I also really liked the atmosphere of the movie. No more kids in Springwood, only crazy grown-ups. The nightmare scenes are all great. The soundtrack is awesome, especially the opening song called ''I'm Awake Now'' performed by Goo Goo Dolls. In my opinion, The Final Nightmare is a horror masterpiece and I can't believe it's so underrated. Maybe it is misunderstood, or I have different tastes! Anyway, all Freddy fans should watch it. It has a lot of scary moments as well as funny moments too, and a lot of cameos! Get yourself ready for something different and you might not be disappointed. | positive |
Definitely not your typical Polizia, Redneck just never worked for me. The movie tells the story of a jewel heist gone wrong and a young boy who is inadvertently kidnapped in the process. In their attempt to get away, the robbers leave a bloody trail of death in their wake as they hatch a plan to ransom the boy. The plan is never carried off as the robbers are more intent on getting to France and the boy is intent on staying with them. While I could cite a number of problems I had with the movie, I'll focus on the most obvious the character Memphis played by Telly Savalas. From his work in The Dirty Dozen and Kelley's Heroes to other Italian films like Crime Boss to his most remembered role as Kojak, Savalas was a winner. I've always thought of him as one uber-cool customer. Unfortunately, Savalas is almost unwatchable in Redneck. Did the director turn on the camera and instruct him to act as psychotic as possible? It might not have been too bad had his actions been done within the context of a plot I cared about, but here he seems to be acting bizarre for sake of being bizarre. It's appears to be random lunacy. And what's with that accent? Savalas might have been a lot of things, but Southern isn't one of them. He sounds completely ridiculous even attempting the accent. Beyond that, I found little of interest in the rest of the movie. As I indicated, the plot never drew me in. I just didn't care about what was going on. And the notion that the boy is so quickly attracted to the criminal lifestyle doesn't ring true. As for the other actors, Mark Lester is almost as bad as Savalas and the usually reliable Franco Nero isn't a whole lot better. Three "name" actors and not a good performance between them. To make matters worse, I believe the director filmed many of the night scenes with nothing more than the glow from his watch to light the shots. I couldn't tell what was going on. Characters I hate, a plot I don't care about, and a production values that failed little wonder I've given Redneck a 3/10. | negative |
One Dark Night has a typical teen horror film set-up with a quite a unique twist. The ultra-brooding musical score and Gothic/claustrophobic atmosphere adds greatly to this small film that delivers. Meg Tilly is excellent as "Julie," and leads us through the maze of the mausoleum, giving a sense of foreboding and loneliness. The other teens are equally effective in their roles as is Melissa Newman, the ultimate heroine of the film. The special effects are excellent, though dated. This film is highly overlooked, but that may be good so that it was never ruined by endless sequels. There is a great, dark magic flowing through this film; once tapped into, you really get it and you're in for some fun. The double-disc DVD is available, though the original negative could not be found to restore the film. Maybe someday it will be located. I guess in some ways the carbon speckles in parts do help the film by giving it an old school respectability and making it more unexpected at the end when suddenly there are plenty of effects.<br /><br />The second disc has a rough cut/alternate version with a temp score version of the film that gives more explanation of the demise of two of the girls, very Poe-ish("The Cask of Amontillado" comes to mind in a new way!) Also, great ending tension going in on the dark crypt opening. Not sure it had the punch for main stream audiences, but certainly worked for me and extremely creepy.. . also, there is a making of documentary that is interesting because it gives info on what was going on at the time with the actors, crew, director and writer; candid material, then current logos, discussions of shots and scenes, rehearsals. Very unique that this stuff exists for a small film back then. | positive |
Dramatic license - some hate it, though it is necessary in retelling any life story. In the case of "Lucy", the main points of Lucille Ball's teenage years, early career and 20 year marriage to Desi Arnaz are all included, albeit in a truncated and reworked way.<br /><br />The main emotional points of Lucy's life are made clear: Lucille's struggle to find her niche as an actress, finally blossoming into the brilliant comedienne who made the character Lucy Ricardo a legend; her turbulent, romantic and ultimately impossible marriage to Desi Arnaz; Lucy & Desi creating the first television empire and forever securing their place in history as TV's most memorable sitcom couple.<br /><br />As Lucille Ball, Rachel York does a commendable job. Do not expect to see quite the same miraculous transformation like the one Judy Davis made when playing Judy Garland, but York makes Ball strong-willed yet likable, and is very funny in her own right. Even though her comedic-timing is different than Lucy's, she is still believable. The film never goes into much detail about her perfectionistic behaviour on the set, and her mistreatment of Vivian Vance during the early "I Love Lucy" years, but watching York portray Lucy rehearsing privately is a nice inclusion.<br /><br />Daniel Pino is thinner and less charismatic than the real Desi was, but he does have his own charm and does a mostly decent job with Desi's accent, especially in the opening scene. Madeline Zima was decent, if not overly memorable, as the teen-aged Lucy.<br /><br />Vivian Vance and William Frawley were not featured much, thankfully, since Rebecca Hobbs and Russell Newman were not very convincing in the roles. Not that they aren't good actors in their own right, they just were not all that suited to the people they were playing. Most of the actors were from Austrailia and New Zeland, and the repressed accents are detectable at times.<br /><br />Although the main structure of the film sticks to historical fact, there are many deviations, some for seemingly inexplicable reasons. Jess Oppenheimer, the head writer of Lucy's radio show "My Favourite Husband" which began in 1948, is depicted in this film as arriving on the scene to help with "I Love Lucy" in 1951, completely disregarding the fact that he was the main creator! This movie also depicts Marc Daniels as being the main "I Love Lucy" director for its entire run, completely ignoring the fact that he was replaced by William Asher after the first season! Also, though I figure this was due to budgetary constraints, the Ricardo's are shown to live in the same apartment for their entire stay in New York, when in reality they changed apartments in 1953. The kitchen set is slightly larger and off-scale from the original as well. The Connecticut home looks pretty close to the original, except the right and left sides of the house have been condensed and restructured. <br /><br />There's also Desi talking about buying RKO in 1953, during Lucy's red-scare incident, even though RKO did not hit the market until 1957. These changes well could have been for dramatic license, and the film does work at conveying the main facts, but would it have hurt them to show a bit more respect to Oppenheimer and Asher, two vital figures in "I Love Lucy" history? The biggest gaff comes in the "I Love Lucy" recreation scenes, at least a few of them. It's always risky recreating something that is captured on film and has been seen by billions of people, but even more so when OBVIOUS CHANGES are made. The scene with the giant bread loaf was truncated, and anyone at all familiar with that episode would have noticed the differences right away! The "We're Having A Baby" number was shortened as well, but other than that it was practically dead on. By far the best was the "grape-stomping" scene, with Rachel York really nailing Lucy's mannerisms. The producers made the wise decision not to attempt directly recreating the "Vitametavegamin" and candy factory bits, instead showing the actors rehearse them. These scenes proved effective because of that approach.<br /><br />The film's main fault is that it makes the assumption the viewers already know a great deal about Lucy's life, since much is skimmed over or omitted at all. Overall, though, it gives a decent portrait of Lucy & Desi's marriage, and the factual errors can be overlooked when the character development works effectively. | positive |
I've read most of the comments here. I came to the conclusion that almost everybody agrees that 9/11 is a shocking piece of history. There are a few who think that the added narrative is weak and <br /><br />I agree that the narrative is weak and unnecessary. About two brothers finding each other back after the disaster and the cliff hanger about Tony. But I don't think narration is unnecessary. Like I lot of theorists I think that our own lives are narrations. We are living and making our own autobiography. So if we tell about our lives this is always in the form of narration. We don't sum up facts like: Birth, Childhood, High School etc. We create a story about our live.<br /><br />Because we are familiar with stories, we want to put history in a story as well. Because in the form of a story we can identify ourselves. We can better understand the things happened in history when its told in the form of a story. So that's the purpose of adding a story in documentary. The story is weak, so be it, but we understand whats going on. If it was me out there I would be worried sick about my brother.<br /><br />And the second point, making a blockbuster movie about it. True, it's been to recent to come up with a big movie about 9/11. Though, there have been a few about the subject, but none of them like this documentary. But what if there will be a movie in about 5 years? I agree it is wrong trying to make a lot of money out of 9/11. But I also agree that movies are one of the best way to tell history. How many movies about the World war 2 have we seen? If I had not seen these movies my view of the WW would me totally different. I remember seeing Schindlers List, and I cried for an hour during class. Movies give you a good image of the things that happened in history and although it is fiction it contributes to the memory of the disasters and the casualties. <br /><br />So my point: telling stories is not always bad, it makes us identify with the story, and makes us never forget what happened. | positive |
This was one of the worst films i have ever seen. I'm still trying to get over how bad it was. Just because it has Godard's name attached to it, doesn't make it great. Beyond the fact it makes absolutely no sense, we see one insanely long shot of a traffic jam that is not stunning, unbelievable or anything of the sort. While this long shot of the traffic jam is going on you will be feeling probably more like making a pastrami sandwich than continuing watching it. Pieces of a supposed story, silly, stupid characters. What message are we suppose to take from this? It offers nothing and serves no purpose. The arrogance of the director in showcasing these puny, dull chain-smoking french people and having them sit around and converse for hours on end and then getting it passed off as art is truly astounding. | negative |
This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. This, in my opinion, is Rob Lowe at his best. I'm not quite sure why this film has gotten such a low rating. I guess you either love it or hate it, but if nothing else, it is definitely worth a rental. | positive |
Although I rarely agree with filmkrönikan, I have to say that this film while not awful, just didn't make me care at all... and it all just seemed to be out of place... it had its moments... three or four ones that made me snicker... but most of the time I was just sitting and wondering why? why did the characters do this? even Hot Shots characters felt more thought out and fleshed out...<br /><br />If you want to see a nice norrlands-film then watch Pistvakt. There it was more than random ethnicities that just walked around shooting each other on the Swedish tundra...<br /><br />I am so disappointed... | negative |
As one of the victims of the whole Enron scandal, my mother forced me to watch this movie with her. How many times can I say awful? The script was so weak, using cliche after cliche. It seems as though the writers pieced this story together with a few articles on Enron. Watching the movie, we honestly were able to complete about half of the one-dimensional characters' lines and thoughts. I realize this was supposedly adapted from a book, but was the book this bad? I don't know what to say. Just terrible. The best thing about the movie? Shannon Elizabeth actually kept her clothes on. Other than that, this movie gets a big fat F. | negative |
I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.<br /><br />The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.<br /><br />Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis. | negative |
When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.<br /><br />When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.<br /><br />To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV. | negative |
i have just finished watching this film in my GCSE history class. it was thrilling and was a brilliant insight to what actually happened to Steve Biko during the time of the Apartheid law. How anybody can say that this film was the most boring or dull 2 and a half hours of their lives i don't know because it had me hooked from start to finish. it was great how Denzel Washington portrayed him and showed how he was fighting against the Apartheid law and to get equal rights for black people. In one part Steve Biko says to a policeman we are just as weak and human as you are, this is to show them that he and all of the other black people in south Africa were no different to the whites. Donald Woods inspired me because he fort for what he believed in and did not believe totally in apartheid. He and Steve Biko formed a very strong friendship that shook south Africa and went on to awaken the world. i very much enjoyed this film and strongly recommend this to people. it helped me see that racism is not right and that everybody is equal, their fate should not be determined by the colour of somebody's skin. n | positive |
Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum. | negative |
Frank Sinatra took this role, chewed it up with the rest of the scenery and - spat it out HIS way. TMWTGA is stagey, the ending is trite, some of the scenes need a little more cutting, but that's all. It's great entertainment from start to finish, and while you watch it you realise that Sinatra, that long-dead MOR crooner, had junkies, gangster card games and the whole US urban hustle thing in his blood - he didn't learn it from an acting coach. There are all sorts of directorial touches to keep you amused, and the (non-dated) soundtrack cooks all the way. The marathon card game beat Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc. by forty years! So it wasn't faithful to the book? What movie is? And I can't imagine it being remembered if Brando had been let loose on it; the cold turkey scenes would have been embarrassing, instead of edgy, convincing and moving with Sinatra. No-one else has mentioned the seedy, lazy, cynical cops - absolutely spot on! And Eleanor Parker would have driven *me* to smack. | positive |
Wow. We watched this film in the hopes that it would have at least some decent rock climbing scenes. We were disappointed there, but it was still a great movie! It was soooo cheesy it was great! I haven't laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. If you are into rock climbing, and you enjoy cheesy movies, then this one is absolutely for you! | positive |
Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.<br /><br />*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph | negative |
An imagination is a terrible thing to waste ... especially when you have talented actors. Writer/Director Jones wastes no time in siding the viewer with his protagonist. <br /><br />Anyone who has shared an apartment with a slob will be crying with laughter. Anyone who has arrived while a meter maid places a ticket on your windshield will just plain cry. We've all wanted to rip a terrible toupee off a man's head. These are only snippets of what's in store when watching "Cross Eyed", a heartfelt film that should be a stepping stone for Jones and his wry sense of humor both in front and behind the camera. | positive |
I was just lucky I found this movie. I've been taking advantage of Walmart's $5.50 DVDs, because I watch a lot of movies (and very seldom watch television). I graduated from high school in 1968 - so I have family and many friends who served in Vietnam. This movie really illustrates the pain I've seen in my friends in dealing with what happened to them over there. I wish more people would see this movie - I think maybe more people could understand what happened to our Vietnam vets by watching these excellent actors in the portrayal of one family damaged by that war. The story felt realistic - it isn't mushy, but made me feel what they were going through. I think it helped that Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez were playing father and son - it made their relationship more believable, | positive |
When tradition dictates that an artist must pass his great skills and magic on to an heir, the aging and very proud street performer, known to all as "The King of Masks," becomes desperate for a young man apprentice to adopt and cultivate.<br /><br />His warmth and humanity, tho, find him paying a few dollars for a little person displaced by China's devastating natural disasters, in this case, massive flooding in the 1930's.<br /><br />He takes his new, 7 year old companion, onto his straw houseboat, to live with his prized and beautiful monkey, "General," only to discover that the he-child is a she-child.<br /><br />His life is instantly transformed, as the love he feels for this little slave girl becomes entwined in the stupifying tradition that requires him to pass his art on only to a young man.<br /><br />There are many stories inside this one...many people are touched, and the culture of China opens itself for our Western eye to observe. Thousands of years of heritage boil down into a teacup of drama, and few will leave this DVD behind with a dry eye.<br /><br />The technical transfer itself is not that great, as I found the sound levels all over the meter, and could actually see the video transfer lines in several parts of the movie. Highly recommended :-) 9/10 stars. | positive |
Why didn't critics like this movie?? I don't get it. This is easily my favorite Clive Barker effort. "Hellraiser" is a bit too rough around the edges (the film just never leaves that stupid house) and, lets face it, "Lord of Illusions" doesn't move at all!!! I have loved Barker's writing for years, especially his "Books of Blood". Terrifically entertaining. He has a vicious side to him that is totally unlike a Stephen King. He freely mixes in his own homosexuality and odd religious and occultic elements. I love love love love it. I also realize , however, that Barker is as much a dark fantasy writer as he is a horror writer. And fantasy just isn't my bag. Puts me right to sleep. Always has. I also think Barker works best with short stories. His novels tend to wander a bit. That was my experience when trying to read "The Damnation Game". It started out well. Then 100 pages in I thought "where is this going?" because it wasn't going ANYWHERE.<br /><br />I read "Cabal" (the book Nightbreed was based on) and thought it was good. I ESPECIALLY like the elaboration on Decker's character. The way the mask talked to him and controlled him. I like the way Barker simply presents it. Black and white. There it is. He gives it a simplicity that's attractive and believable. When asked why Decker kills he says (simply) "Because I like it". Probably something Jeffrey Dahmer said at some point.<br /><br />But I actually liked the film Nightbreed better than Cabal. I adore the visual attention to detail that Barker gives to his films. ADORE IT. I think it is just beautiful. Lord of Illusions had some of this as well. Some of the drawings in the beginning, during the Nightbreed credit sequence. It's like an entire vocabulary Barker dreamed up just for the Nightbreed world. I'd be curious to know how much was purely his design. I know he is an AMAZING artist who his own style and language as an artist.<br /><br />Nightbreed is also (I think) BArker's most entertaining film. It moves very quickly. Well edited. It doesn't drag like Lord of Illusions does a little bit. Very quick. Everything in it is just perfect. It also works as a fantastic and scary little slasher movie. The stuff with the killer in the beginning killing the family and later tormenting the old man in the shop is really scary stuff. That mask is frightening. I'd be curious to know if Barker designed that as well. It's not just a hokey Jason or "Scream"-type mask. Something about it is really disturbing.<br /><br />Anyway, this is a great flick. Definitely check it out if you haven't seen it. Highly recommended. One of my favorite horror films of all time. In my opinion Clive BArker's best. It IS scary and violent though, be warned | positive |
"This Is Not A Love Song" is a brilliant example of the chase genre, which many people think has an underlying meaning. The love between the two main characters may be more than fraternal. I believe that Heaton is in love with Spike, but Spike is too naive to see this.<br /><br />I really feel this is portrayed with such scenes as the blow back and letter writing sequences. Heaton shows great intimacy towards Spike. With intense facial expressions and how he takes great care in writing Spike's name on the top of his letters.<br /><br />One thing I've noticed when looking at external reviews, is that when the film has been slated, the reviewer seems to have not fully understood the film, as they haven't even mentioned the possibility of Heaton having sexual feelings for Spike. I also get the feeling that some of the reviewers haven't recognised it, when they use phrases like: "Who is Heaton? What's he doing with a retard like Spike?" This person, however may have hit the nail on the head with their remark. Spike shows noticeable signs of having A.D.D, although I don't think this person has realised this, as he seems to be using the word "retard" as a derogatory term.<br /><br />I really enjoyed this film. Although it is not for the faint hearted. The film is exceedingly character based, after the shooting until the end there isn't much but dialogue between the two anti-heroes. Unless you are used to watching such deep, gritty films, stay well away. | positive |
Breaker! Breaker! has Chuck Norris as a truck driver and a karate master, talk about juggling two disparate careers. He gives a load he can't deliver to his younger brother Michael Augenstein and then when the young man doesn't show up, Chuck goes looking for him.<br /><br />What young Augenstein has got himself into is a speed-trap run by Judge George Murdock who comes from the Roy Bean school of jurisprudence. Of course Norris deals with matters in the usual Chuck Norris way and when he gets in trouble, the call goes out over the CB for all the truckers to come and help their good buddy. This speed-trap known as Texas City has a bad reputation and the drivers are only too happy to help a pal.<br /><br />Chuck's of course quite a bit younger and with no facial hair in this one. He's got the tight lipped look of a man who realizes the Academy won't be looking at this gobbler. George Murdock is overacting outrageously as the Judge Roy Bean wannabe.<br /><br />This one is strictly for the fans of Chuck Norris. | negative |
Greatly enjoyed this 1945 mystery thriller film about a young woman, Nina Foch,(Julia Ross) who is out of work and has fallen behind in her rent and is desperate to find work. Julia reads an ad in the local London newspaper looking for a secretary and rushes out to try and obtain this position. Julia obtains the position and is hired by a Mrs. Hughes, (Dame May Witty) who requires that she lives with her employer in her home and wants her to have no involvement with men friends and Julia tells them she has no family and is free to devote her entire time to this job. George Macready, (Ralph Hughes) is the son of Mrs. Hughes and has some very strange desires for playing around with knives. This was a low budget film and most of the scenes were close ups in order to avoid the expense of a background and costs for scenery. This strange family all live in a huge mansion off the Cornwall Coast of England and there is secret doors and plenty of suspense. | positive |
For years we've been watching every horror film that comes out, from the dull Hollywood retreads like Saw 2, to awful indie releases that are completely unmatchable... we suffer through all of bad films in hopes of finding little gems like "Dark Remains".<br /><br />We managed to catch a screening of this film at Shriekfest 2005. The audience loved it and I believe it ended up winning the award for the best film.<br /><br />While it may not have the budget or star power of studio films, it packs a serious punch in the creepy atmosphere and scare category. The acting and cinematography are top notch, but it's the direction that makes this film worth the view. The story and characters develop at just the right pace to provide some fantastic scares.<br /><br />The editing and visual fx are also top notch. And while many horror films don't manage to use music to their benefit, the score for "Dark Remains" only adds to it's creepiness.<br /><br />I know the film has shown at a bunch of festivals, but none have been near me, so I can't wait to hear when it'll finally be coming out on DVD. Trust me, even if you're sick of the current state of horror films, give this one a try... you won't regret it! | positive |
Even if you subscribe to the knee-jerk anti-free-trade politics of this movie, it is still just the same tired note, played again and again and again. Clink clink clink. Even if you can accept a preacher with peroxide hair who advocates a return to first principles, the Reverend Billy is pretty hard to look at as a serious figure. The clownish reverend is the sort who wakes every morning with no aspiration more ethereal than to see his own face on TV before he climbs back into bed that night. He has a pretty wife, I have to admit, but it would take tons more than that to save this dreary mess of a movie. The interminable bus rides are the worst part--with progress shown--can you guess?--by a colored line moving across a map. Aww, you guessed. Oh well, it has the virtue of being short. Is that the only favorable thing I can say? Hmmmm. Yep, afraid so. | negative |
"After World War I, an expedition representing the Allied countries is sent to Cambodia to stop the efforts of Count Mazovia in creating a zombie like army of soldiers and laborers. Hoping to prevent a possible outbreak of war due to Mazovia's actions, the group presses through the jungle to Angkor Wat in spite of the perils. The group includes Armand who has his own agenda contrary to the group's wishes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Heads up! the zombie make-up department revolted before the cameras started to roll. <br /><br />Also, this "Revolt of the Zombies" has little to do with its supposed predecessor "White Zombie" (1932) *****, which starred Bela Lugosi. If that film's zombies didn't thrill you, this one's certainly won't. A younger-than-usual Dean Jagger (as Armand Louque) stars as a man obsessive with blonde Dorothy Stone (as Claire Duval). A couple supporting performances are good: devilish Roy D'Arcy (as Mazovia) and subservient Teru Shimada (as Buna); however, neither are given enough material to really pull this one out of the dumps.<br /><br />** Revolt of the Zombies (1936) Victor Halperin ~ Dean Jagger, Dorothy Stone, Roy D'Arcy | negative |
***Minor Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.<br /><br />'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.<br /><br />The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.<br /><br />Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'. | negative |
Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.<br /><br />Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.<br /><br />Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.<br /><br />Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.<br /><br />My rating: 1/5 | negative |
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior. | negative |
I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Joe Dante's original THE HOWLING (1981) so I wasn't particularly interested in checking out any of its sequels; some time ago, I did catch HOWLING III: THE MARSUPIALS (1987) by the same director as this one and found it to be watchable but nothing special.<br /><br />The second instalment, however, has quite a bad rep and I knew I'd have a good time watching it if mainly to wallow in the sight of dear but pompous horror icon Christopher Lee squirming in the midst of it all (the gracefully-aged star has pathetically asserted a number of times in interviews that he hasn't appeared in horror-oriented fare since his last picture for Hammer Films back in 1976!). Anyway, this film should have borne the subtitle "Your Movie Is A Turd" being astoundingly inept in all departments (beginning with the all-important werewolf make-up)! <br /><br />The plot (and dialogue) is not only terrible, but it has the limpest connection with Dante's film strangely enough, the author of the original novel Gary Brandner co-wrote this himself! Still, one of the undeniable highlights (er...low points) of the film is the pointless elliptical editing which tries to give the whole a semblance of style, but only serves to accentuate its embarrassment factor! Similarly phoney (and grating) are the hokey transitions between scenes, the inane punk-rock theme song, and the cheapjack special-effects at the climax! <br /><br />What about the characters, then?: Lee is the werewolf expert, naturally, whom everybody thinks a crackpot until they come into contact with the monsters, that is; at the very least, though, one has to admire the makers' ingenuity (or gall) in devising a stupid subtitle with a dual meaning! Incidentally, Sybil Danning (as Stirba, Werewolf Bitch the subtitle by which this is known in the U.K.!) is quite fetching in an assortment of outrageous S&M outfits...but her character is virtually given nothing to do (except preside over her brood of followers and engage in the occasional hilarious three-way lycanthrope sex!); her two snarling lieutenants (one of them a sluttish black girl) are especially irritating.<br /><br />Aiding Lee on the side of good are the two yuppie heroes (he being the brother of the Dee Wallace character from the first film and she a colleague of hers) and a ragged guerrilla-type band of Transylvians (still, they generally manage to effortlessly overcome Danning's rather dumb werewolves!). Notable among them is a knife-throwing dwarf who gets a particularly nasty (but, at the same time, side-splitting) demise; he's later revived, under Stirba's control, in order to lure Lee (by making childish taunts at him all through the village streets) into a trap. The latter scene has to be a career nadir for the distinguished and imposing actor well, either this or the early sequence in a discotheque where Lee is made to don a pair of ultra-cool sunglasses so as to appear inconspicuous among the partying youngsters!<br /><br />In the end, if I were forced to mention elements in this which weren't entirely displeasing, I guess I could say that the ossuary set (in which the heroine is to be sacrificed) is interesting, or that the hybrid werewolf/bat creature (Danning's pet who likes to 'inhabit' the body of its victims) is just too weird to be despised... | negative |
This is one of the best films I have ever seen! How anyone can knock this movie just befuddles my imagination! First of all, Gooding's and Harris's performances were simply spectacular, especially Gooding. That is the only way I can describe the acting: spectacular! You have to imagine how difficult it would be to play a character like that and pull it off; then you see Gooding, and his performance was magical. As for the plot, since it was based on a true person, it goes where the lives of the characters go. For all the action buffs, it might be a little slow, but then it's not an action film. I definitely give this movie a 10. It deserves nothing less! | positive |
Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted. I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of this movie was great. My opinion is of " Cooley High " is turn back the hands of time, those were the fun years. | positive |
Though derivative, "Labyrinth" still stands as the highlight of the mid-half of the six-year-old show. Finally a story allows Welling to show how he has grown as an actor. It's not easy playing a character that is the embodiment of "truth, justice, and the American way" on a weekly basis with very little variation. His performance, permitting him to show how one might react if he/she discovers that all that he knew may be a lie, was quite believable.<br /><br />Welling rose to the occasion marvelously.<br /><br />As always, Michael Rosenbaum, as the "handicapped" Lex, delivered, as did Kristen Kreuk as a too-sweet-to-be-believed Lana. Allison Mack, the ever-present Chloe, also scored as a slightly "off-her-rocker" version.<br /><br />The use of an annoying hum in the background added to the tone of the installment and made for an engaging drama. | positive |
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D- | negative |
We just finished screening El Padrino in Australia. A phenomenal piece of film work. We look forward to seeing many more films from Mr. Chapa in the future. It was wonderful to see such a well put together film with such suspense and a story that shall remain an instant classic. Seeing a film with great quality truly outlines Chapa's serious potential and his adept skill as a writer, actor, director, and filmmaker. Chapa has impressed many with his triumphant performance in "blood in and blood out" and now he has proved to all who have see his works his potential to become a critically acclaimed film maker with genuine artistic control. With his lead role Kilo Vasquez being a perfect combination between Milo Velka from "Blood in Blood Out" and Al Pacino from "Scarface" the film will do wonders for us here in Australia. | positive |
Superdome is one of those movies that makes you wonder why it was made. The whole plot concerns someone trying to sabotage the superbowl, and all the attempts made to stop them. How Tom Selleck and Donna Mills' careers managed to survive this is beyond me. However, the most frustrating thing about it was THERE WAS NO FOOTBALL IN IT AT ALL! Avoid this one if possible. | negative |
Absolutely one of the 10 best music films Ever! A totally essential educational experience for any music fanatic--Especially young rock/punk fans today...understanding the beginnings of any particular "artistic" movement absolutely requires understanding the roots of the music,as well as the mindset and musical environment of the times....not to mention the political and social factors involved at the time. And,besides all that,this documentary is flat-out rock-n-roll F U N !! Do Not Miss It!!! that said,can anyone tell me when,if ever, "the decline of western civilization"...part 1,( Not part 2,the metal version) will be made available again..hopefully on DVD? | positive |
I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the "experts" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.<br /><br />So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???<br /><br />There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 | positive |
This film is a very beautiful and slow film. There is nothing Hollywood about it. It is very danish and the characters are very real. It is the first danish film to take up this transsexual theme. It is really about love that has no gender. I would not say it is about lesbian love even though the two main characters (the transsexual veronika and Charlotte) are attracted to each other. It is a story about love and life.<br /><br />The story pretty much takes place in the two apartments. There is almost no background music, which makes it seem more real and intense. The two actors playing the main characters are great. They really make them seem real. They are not archetypes, but real people you could meet in the street. I think it is the first time I have seen a transsexual portrayed this well. Very well done. | positive |
Rabbit Fever is a mockumentary collection of sketches, each one of them focussing on a female personal device that was made popular by a single 1998 episode of Sex and the City (the latter half of 1998, rather than the early episodes which were all directed by women). From opening statistics that make Rabbit Fever sound like a soft porn movie, we are treated to a sea of predictable sketches with real and imaginary characters in a world run amok with women's addiction to solitary pleasure.<br /><br />Men, as Germaine Greer rather arrogantly explains, have invented a gadget for women that makes men superfluous in the bedroom. The Rabbit Vibrator (which some statistics suggest accounts for about a quarter of all vibrator sales) is so called because of little rabbit-like long ears which vibrate to stimulate the clitoris, while rotating pearls inside the shaft stimulate the inside of the vagina. The film interviews characters that attend Rabbits Anonymous to help overcome their 'addiction', as well as known people such as Tom Conti posing as a professor or Richard Branson (amid scenes of rabbits being banned on aircraft) saying he would like to provide free rabbits to his first class air travel passengers and ultimately to all of them.<br /><br />The main weakness of the film is that the idea is not enough to sustain 85 minutes of cinema, the sketches don't have the writing skills of say a Charlotte Church or Ricky Gervais to make them funny enough and, while it might make desultory late night TV, doesn't have a hook to get people to queue up in public at multiplexes to watch masturbation jokes.<br /><br />Lines like, "It's been nearly a week since you used your rabbit - how are you coping?" wear rather thin after five minutes. The film is based on the idea that the mere mention of the word 'rabbit' will get a laugh . . . and another one, and another one. Frantic midnight drives to buy batteries might be amusing in real life, but here they look rather laborious, and the special emergency delivery service outstays its welcome.<br /><br />Strangely the BBFC gave it an 18 certificate in spite of zero violence, hardly any explicit sex, and sexual references that are less 'perverted' than any late night comedy show. The company protested the decision, but the BBFC didn't budge. At first sight this seems overkill on their part and their consumer advice now simply says, "Contains frequent strong sex references." One might think that youngsters would find masturbation jokes funnier than the most desperate of hen night parties, and the topic one worthy of debate; but Rabbit Fever does not even have the saving grace of a balanced approach to its subject matter.<br /><br />The best part is probably The Rabbit Song by Ruocco (who play a band called Thumper in the film). For those who have dozed off and woken up at the end credits, there is a bonus scene at the end of them to reassure them that they haven't missed anything. | negative |
My kids loved this movie. we watched it every chance we got.it was fun a fun movie. we watched it as a family and everyone of us enjoyed it. it was a movie you could watch without any uncomfortable spots that you would have to explain to the younger ones. my boys loved this movie and they would love to be able to see it again. even after all these years they remember it. that Amy Jo Johnson was a very cute girl. all my boys had crushes on her. they loved her as the pink power ranger which is why we watched this movie to begin with. (as you can tell i am rambling a bit to fill lines LOL). but seriously it is a fun movie and worth watching. Disney please give us a DVD or replay! | positive |
Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.<br /><br />Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!<br /><br />Ivan Yanachkov | positive |
I have no idea what the budget on this movie was, but whatever it was they made it work! I have seen movies that spend 100x the amount (Pearl Harbor anyone?) and sucked 200x worse. This movie has everything. David "Makin' It" Naughton in the lead role as Adam, an average college student who gets wrapped up in a game called the Great AllNighter" run by Leon! This guy rocks! A "genius" with nothing better to do than come up with an elaborate game for a bunch of people to play. But he doesn't just pick his friends. He has a team of Jocks, nerds, fatties, average kids and of course, Flounder's team who are the "bad guys". But this movie has no black and white. There are many shades of gray. Adam is not the altruistic hero with no faults. He treats Alex P. like crap. AND Flounder is the way he is because of pressures from his Dad and a cranky stomach. The jocks play dirty, but so does everyone else! This movie rocks! The scene at the PBR factory? Classic! "Johnny's Obese Male Child?" Can you write a better clue? This stuff is gold Jerry! GOLD! Maybe I am from a different generation, but I love movies that seem far-fetched but still have roots in reality. This never happened...but it could. Eeeee-Gypt.... EEEE....Easter Bunny....Easter Parade! Oh and watch for a young Paul Rubens still working on that Pee wee character. PS That Devra Clinger WAS/is HOT! She must have been one bad actress not to work in Hollywood anymore. SEE THIS MOVIE! | positive |
There are a lot of people that put down on these type 80's movies but those people may not have been coming of age during this time. I was just starting college when this movie was released so I could really appreciate it at the time and my friends and I still, to this day, will occasionally joke about certain lines in the movie. As much as I liked Sean Penn's Character Jeff Spicoli in "Fast Times", I actually enjoy Chris Penn's Character "Tommy" more because he is the lead character with more of a actual speaking roll opposed to just a series of one liners such as with Spicoli. Chris Penn should probably pop this film in his VCR and use it for motivation to lose some weight. Yes, the subplot with the Randy Quaid, Vietnam vet character does seem a little out of place, but he does a convincing job in the role. If there is anyone out there that hasn't seen this movie but liked the other similar type movies such as "Fast Times", etc. I highly recommend it. | positive |
No one can argue with it. This IS and WILL BE the best movie ever, as it is the perfect definition of what any movie should be : a collective hypnosis beyond times. No movie can give you more perfectly this impression that you carried it inside you, even before you saw it for the first time.<br /><br />There are images that stay forever... | positive |
This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it. | negative |
Yeah...I read David Lee Roth's autobiography, "Crazy From the Heat," (which by the way is an amazing read), and DLR says this was his favorite blacksploitation movie as a kid. In fact, he says he always imagined himself as a black guy in Southern Cal. Mr Roth is quoted as saying:<br /><br />"We saw every Blacksploitation picture, and those movies were a HUGE influence on me. Trouble Man, Superfly, Foxy Brown, Shaft, Cleopatra Jones, Blacula, Rudy Ray Moore doin' his Dolemite vibe-I saw all of those..."<br /><br />He goes on to say:<br /><br />"Dolemite - Rudy Ray Moore - was one of the originals. He was a blue comic, doing blue humor. Like Redd Foxx did on early party records. So he was the most perfect to play a new secret agent. His answer was not "Bonds. James Bond." His answer was "Dolemite, motherf*****!" We would wait for that line in all of his movies. "Get Whitey" would show up in every single movie at least once, and we would wait for that, too. They had the cars. They had the shoes. They had the guns. The Haircuts. The Slang. And the scams. And we all knew that all those beatific resolves at the end of the movie were white bull****. He's trying to feed hungry children but he's actually a pimp...bull****. That was designed to make it palatable to our moms and dads so they'd let us go see the picture."<br /><br />Spoken like a true genius. So upon reading about Dolemite in Mr. Roth's book I immediately bought in on DVD and I really like it. Yeah, it's super low-budget, and yeah...I hate rap...but as a fan of Tarantino movies, I can see many similarities, especially some of the 70's fusion/funk ala-jaco pastorius music throughout the film. I also love the scene where the two cops 'bust' him for coke and then one of them snorts a whole bunch of it like he'd done it a thousand times before, and says something like, "Aww yeah....that's the real mccoy!"...and then he continues to talk and has a little bit of coke still on his lip. CLASSIC! Some of the violence is a little over the edge, but shocking, which I would consider to be a positive quality. Not as predictable as I assumed it would be. Definitely going to pick up "The Human Tornado" very soon. 10 out of 10. | positive |
I can't imagine why it hasn't been theatrically released yet. It's got a great ensemble cast, with Sutherland, Lane, and especially Chris Evans doing spectacular work. Wake up, studio execs!<br /><br />The story is based upon the experiences of the author/screenwriter, growing up as the "poor kid" in an extremely affluent community, where class is everything, and makes a difference in every aspect of life, from clothing to justice.<br /><br />During the film's Q&A, the author was asked about his experiences, and particularly what we don't know about the ultra-rich. He said they aren't stupid, they're very smart (as opposed to how they may portray themselves), they've got plans, and they are a threat!<br /><br />In many ways, this film is extremely timely. | positive |
Probably grossly underrated by all who never experienced the hell of living under communist regime. Although, it seems hard to believe, all of it happened, actually the reality was even worse than the movie. It resembles Orwellian fiction, only this is no fiction. John Hurt is excellent as always. Yes, the screenplay is not full of action, but life is not either. Plot is breathtaking. Yes, people were shot, yes thousands of them. Their 'crime' was that they wanted to leave communist 'paradise' without government authorization. At times the movie drives tears in your eyes. We need more movies like this to really appreciate what America provides for us. Excellent movie, highly recommend! God bless our country, USA! | positive |
The best part of An American In Paris is the lengthy ballet sequence at the end, where Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron are the living personification of several major painters. Kelly has earlier been established as a pavement artist in Paris, so the sequence is the logical ending to a musical bursting with life and energy, Gershwin tunes, and cast members like Georges Guetary and Oscar Levant. Kelly was at his best here - it's a little different to Singin' in the Rain, and the effect of all the film as one topped with the ballet gives it a definite wow factor. No wonder the sequence ended 'That's Entertainment' after all other MGM musical highlights had gone by! | positive |
For late-80s cheese, this really isn't so bad. There are a lot of pretty funny throwaway one-liners ("That was grand theft!" - "Thanks!") and Madonna gives a fine performance; nothing award-worthy here, but that goes for Razzies as well as Oscars. I'm curious to know if the movie would have been better received if she had used her regular (pre-British influenced) speaking voice rather than the hyper-Bronxy accent used instead. Oh well. As a side note, I got to meet one of the actors who played one of the motorcycle cops through my work; he said that it was a fun film to work on but gave me the sad news that the actor who played Buck the UPS delivery guy died about a year after Who's That Girl | positive |
As a young black/latina woman I am always searching for movies that represent the experiences and lives of people like me. Of course when I saw this movie at the video store I thought I would enjoy it; unfortunately, I didn't. Although the topics presented in the film are interesting and relevant, the story was simply not properly developed. The movie just kept dragging on and on and many of the characters that appear on screen just come and go without much to contribute to the overall film. Had the director done a better job interconnecting the scenes, perhaps I would have enjoyed it a bit more. Honestly, I would recommend a film like "Raising Victor" over this one any day. I just was not too impressed. | negative |
Without a doubt, 12 MONKEYS is one of the best films of the Sci-fi genre and director Terry Gilliam is no stranger at pulling off such cinematic originality. An apocalyptic film that holds you completely spellbound, 12 MONKEYS never lets up and has you guessing all the way throughout. Excellent use of Philadelphia locales and netherworld sets create a gothic sense of tragedy and two people caught in time at the wrong place.<br /><br />Bruce Willis escapes his macho image and portrays a true loony who happens to be right about all that will happen. He is actually sane, but the people of the future (or present if you will) distort this guy's head so bad through time travel, no wonder he unravels. He gets sent to World War I just after beng sent to the wrong year to find out how the Army of the Twelve Monkeys pulls off the annihilation of civilization as we know it. They finally get it right and in what is truly a remarkable screenplay to match the performance, we get to see Willis, Madeleine Stowe and an ominous Brad Pitt cross-referenced over the course of 6 years.<br /><br />Stowe is sensual and solid as the risk-taking shrink who slowly starts to realize that Willis may not be as cracked up as he seems. A captivating element of the relationship between her and Willis is their sense of "seeing" each other before, in another place or time. 12 MONKEYS is essentially about time and the madness the futuristic people immerse into it and the times of the present, when killers and a psychotic genius can alter the world.<br /><br />The brooding city of Philadelphia is a dark and gothic backdrop for Willis' plight to complete his mission which is, against all usual Hollywood stereotype, NOT to save the world. He is gathering information. The film plays tricks on the viewer as well, placing Willis in a new setting at the drop of a pin. This must have been an extremely difficult picture to make but Gilliam seems to be the master of hard-boiled movie making. He even drops in some humor reminiscent of other great works like TIME BANDITS, and BRAZIL. The screen is this man's canvas and he knows how to paint a sometimes terrifying picture of the world and its possible future within the mainstream atmosphere of big-budget films. If you want sincere madness and ironic tragedy, see 12 MONKEYS.<br /><br />RATING: 9 of 10 | positive |
The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.<br /><br />Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.<br /><br />NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.<br /><br />There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.<br /><br />So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen. | positive |
This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.<br /><br />We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.<br /><br />Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.<br /><br />Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.<br /><br />The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.<br /><br />We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.<br /><br />All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.<br /><br />The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere... | negative |
This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.<br /><br />As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.<br /><br />Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.<br /><br />So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.<br /><br />Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.<br /><br />What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".<br /><br />Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?" | negative |
I tried. God knows I tried to like this Swiss Cheese of a movie, but the story was too full of holes, some big enough to drive a horse drawn carriage through. The acting overall was even and the characters endearing enough that you regretted they died off like recently sprayed roaches, scattering off to die their own gruesome deaths. Overall, however, it was not really very scary. Afterall we have seen spooky quickly moving figures in the background since "The Brood" why back when / and it was scary then just briefly. This film just never resolved the basic plot points and thats the writer's job. Naturally you would expect the director to pick up on the fact that the story did not make sense. Like who's was the secret room behind the wardrobe, why did the blood hungry ghost not die when she received the nails as prescribed by the book they read earlier? Why did the computer say "game over" for Frankie's character even though he lived? The list goes on and on. I don't really feel comfortable recommending this film as its makes you feel like you wasted your time and there was not enough payoff in truly scary moments. | negative |
"Atoll K" aka "Utopia" is one of Hollywood's saddest swan songs. Filmed in France, "The Land That Loves Lewis (Jerry)" in 1950 and released the following year after a five-year layoff, the boys are in truly terrible shape physically. However, they aren't in nearly as bad a shape as the script.<br /><br />This movie is one of the un-funniest "comedies" ever filmed.<br /><br />It's painful to see this legendary team, the funniest duo in the history of motion pictures, the twosome that made "The Devil's Brother" (1933), "The Music Box," (1932),"Pack Up Your Troubles" (also 1932), "Babes In Toyland" (1934), "Bonnie Scotland" (1935), "Flying Deuces" (1939) and so many more gut-wrenching, laugh-til-you-choke classic comedies, in a film such as this.<br /><br />But fighters and ballplayers do it all the time. They stay in the game one season or one fight too many. In this case, while is morbidly fascinating to see Laurel & Hardy at this late stage in their legendary careers, they, too, stuck around for one too many. | negative |
This movie is so bad, it's comical. In fact, Mystery Science Theatre 3000, the television show in which three characters watch and parody bad movies, used this very film to mock. I suggest watching it (maybe on YouTube) instead of actually seeing this movie.<br /><br />Please, do not see Hobgoblins if you're not prepared to stop within the first scene. Actually, do not see this movie, period. Please. At least not seriously. Its jokes are not funny (to say the least), and you'll have much more fun parodying or watching a parody of it then viewing the movie.<br /><br />You may feel yourself becoming sick upon watching, so spare yourself. Read a book. Do the laundry. Anything is more fun than watching Hobgoblins. | negative |
I've watched the first 17 episodes and this series is simply amazing! I haven't been this interested in an anime series since Neon Genesis Evangelion. This series is actually based off an h-game, which I'm not sure if it's been done before or not, I haven't played the game, but from what I've heard it follows it very well.<br /><br />I give this series a 10/10. It has a great story, interesting characters, and some of the best animation I've seen. It also has some great Japanese music in it too!<br /><br />If you haven't seen this series yet, check it out. You can find subbed episodes on some anime websites out there, it's straight out of Japan. | positive |
Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.<br /><br />There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.<br /><br />The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a "strafing" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.<br /><br />Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.<br /><br />Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.<br /><br />And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.<br /><br />As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.<br /><br />Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. | negative |
Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.<br /><br />The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned | negative |
I was lucky enough to catch this film finally on Turner Classic films tonight, as it is one of the films that won an Oscar (for special effects) in their yearly month of Oscar winning films. <br /><br />BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS is easily a sequel film for the earlier success of MARY POPPINS. That film too was a big success, and an Oscar winner (Best Actress for Julie Andrews). Like MARY POPPINS BEDKNOBS has David Tomlinson in it, in a role wherein he learns about parenting. It is a fine mixture of live action and animation. It is set in a past period of British history (if not the Edwardian - Georgian world of 1912 London, it is England's coastline during the "Dunkirk" Summer of 1940). It even has old Reginald Owen in it, here as a General in the Home Guard, whereas formerly he was Admiral Boom in MARY POPPINS. Ironically it was Owen's final role.<br /><br />The Home Guard sequences (not too many in the film) reminds one of the British series DAD'S ARMY, dealing with the problems of the local home guard in the early years of the war. The period is also well suggested by the appearance of the three Rawlins children as war orphans from the bombings in the Blitz in London. And (in typical Disney fashion) in the musical number "Portobello Road" different members of the British Army (including soldiers from India and the Caribbean (complete with metal drums yet!)) appear with Scottish and local female auxiliaries in costume.<br /><br />All of which, surprisingly, is a plus. But the biggest plus is that for Angela Lansbury, her performance as Eglantine Price is finally it: her sole real musical film lead. In a noteworthy acting career, Lansbury never got the real career musical role she deserved as Auntie Mame in the musical MAME that came out shortly after BEDKNOBS did. She had been in singing parts (in GASLIGHT with her brief UP IN A BALLOON BOYS, and in THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY with LITTLE YELLOW BIRD, and - best of all - in support and in conclusion of THE HARVEY GIRLS with the final reprise of ON THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA, AND THE SANTA FE). But only here does she play the female lead. So when you hear her singing with David Tomlinson you may be able to understand what we lost when she did not play Mame Dennis Burnside.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is pretty good, Tomlinson here learning that he can rise to the occasion after a lifetime of relative failure. The three children (Cindy O'Callaghan, Roy Snart, and Ian Weighill) actually showing more interesting sides in their characters than their Edwardian predecessors in POPPINS (Weighill in particular, as something of a budding opportunist thinking of blackmailing Lansbury after finding out she is a witch). The only surprising waste (possibly due to cutting of scenes) is Roddy McDowall as the local vicar who is only in two sequences of the film. With his possible role as a disapproving foe of witchcraft he should have had a bigger part. Also of note is John Ericson, as the German officer who leads a raid at the conclusion of the film, only to find that he is facing something more powerful than he ever imagined in the British countryside, and Sam Jaffe as a competitor for the magic formula that Lansbury and Tomlinson are seeking. <br /><br />As for the animation, the two sequences under the sea in a lagoon, and at the wildest soccer match ever drawn are well worth the view, with Tomlinson pulled into the latter as the referee, and getting pretty badly banged up in various charges and scrimmages. As I said it is a pretty fine sample of the Disney studio's best work. | positive |
In São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.<br /><br />The polemic and shameful "Cama de Gato" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Cama de Gato" ("Bed of the Cat") | negative |
I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!! | negative |
Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.<br /><br />The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.<br /><br />This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..<br /><br />Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half. | negative |
I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.<br /><br />Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.<br /><br />The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.<br /><br />The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.<br /><br />There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has. | negative |
Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".<br /><br />The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit. | positive |
Who doesn't love the muppets?! Impossible it is to watch them without getting some kind of warm, fuzzy feeling inside. So, I guess what's important is that this movie seemed to very successfully capture what makes the muppets so special. I don't remember much about the details of the plot but the various moments and characters in the film I recall quite fondly. In fact, there was quite a nostalgic atmosphere to the whole movie but without being self-conscious in any bad way. Refreshing for someone who possibly gets too hung up on meticulous details and technique; the "magic" transcends all that other stuff. 'Tis indeed what movies are made of.<br /><br />So, how does the film achieve these things? Hmmm, nice question! Stumped am I? Let's see. Really, I feel like it's quite simple. The filmmakers believe in their material and don't take themselves too seriously in the process. I probably wouldn't say the film has many truly inspired moments, but it does have a certain life to it (that funnily enough a great many "real people" movies lack). A zest. You really want to believe in these funny little people and their adventures. They also have a certain innocence about them that makes them all the more endearing.<br /><br />Generally I get the impression that the people that made the movie just weren't afraid to try whatever felt right to them at the time which gives the whole thing quite a loose feel. Kind of like a really accessible and enjoyable extended jazz session. Lots of talent, little predictability and plenty of warm personalities coming through. The cameos were of course a bunch of nice surprises for instance. Maybe I don't feel I have much to say about it because I was half-asleep when I saw it (and/or as I write this review). Anyway, I'm sort of semi-repeating myself here but I really liked the sense of family the movie had. Full of love I suppose you might say. Again, a feeling of nostalgia comes to mind which not many films manage to achieve so effectively or effortlessly.<br /><br />And to repeat myself once more, one of the film's best charms is its very relaxed and welcoming atmosphere. Like the Nathaniel Hawthorne quote about happiness being (like) a butterfly, so The Muppet Movie greatly succeeds partially by not seeming to try to do so. Same with beauty being best undiscovered or untouched or unforced or something like that. Anyway, if that sounds sappy, I also reckon it was pretty hilarious.<br /><br />So, all in all, this movie was very funny, touching and difficult not to smile along to. Plus it features lots of great music! Highly recommended to all humans, both the young and the young at heart. | positive |
I read thru most of the comments posted here & all I can say it that most of these posters have major problems in life. This show, unlike most game show, was fun. Mr. Shatner, whose brill in ALL that he does, was again the hit of the show. He's genuinely bubbly personality shines like a beacon where ever he goes. He's fun & makes you smile & that's exactly what the show does also. The dancers & questions, the round-about fashion they're presented only add to the shows appeal. And even though there's a Great deal of money at stake it's fun. The pressure (stress) that exists in most game shows does NOT exist here. Several people who posted messages complained how much time is waisted with the dancers & choosing questions, &c, like Millionaire doesn't have similar time wasters. All I can say is most of you have missed the whole concept. The idea here is to have FUN & ENJOY yourself. There's something for everyone. Qustions to test your knowledge, eye candy (the dancers), suspense, Mr. Shatner's wonderful fun-filled personality... well if that doesn't perk-up guys up then I feel bad for you; and if that's not enough, YOU CAN GET RICH! I really miss the show. Out of ALL the games shows that have ever been on, & to be quite frank, I HATE game shows, this is the one I really liked & truly miss. The only other game show I ever liked was Match Game. | positive |
I, like many horror fans, have been force fed the same banal big budget Hollywood remakes and MTV high school slasher tripe for the last 20 years. Here, at last, is an original horror genre movie that ticks all the right boxes.<br /><br />You want a hot lead actress, you want vampires, you want cool weapons, you want cool vehicles and you want blood, lots of it, by the bucket load - you got it.<br /><br />With excellent fight choreography and a supporting role from the Hammer Horror scream queen herself Stephanie Beacham, this really is fantastic stuff.<br /><br />Despite it's low budget, by opting to use 35 mm stock and adding quality CG effects to the mix, director James Eaves has created something that feels much bigger.<br /><br />A must for old school horror fans. | positive |
This is a very strange film, with a no-name cast and virtually nothing known about it on the web. It uses an approach familiar to those who have watched the likes of Creepshow in that it introduces a trilogy of so-called "horror" shorts and blends them together into a connecting narrative of the people who are involved in the segments getting off a bus. There is a narrator who prattles on about relationships, but his talking adds absolutely nothing to the mix at all and just adds to the confusion. As for the stories themselves, well.. I swear I have not got a clue why this movie got an 18 certificate in the UK, which would bring it into line with the likes of Nightmare On Elm Street and The Exorcist. Nothing here is even remotely scary.. there is no gore, sex, nudity or even a swear word to liven things up, this is the kind of thing you could put out on Children's TV and no-one would bat an eyelid. I can only think if it had got the rating it truly deserved (a PG) no serious horror fan would be seen dead with it, so the distributor probably buffeted the BBFC until they relented. Anyway, here are the 3 tales in summary: 1. A man becomes dangerously obsessed with his telekinetic car to the point of alienating his fiancee. 2. A man who lives in a filthy apartment is understandably freaked out when a living organism evolved from his six-month old tuna casserole. 3. A woman thinks she has found the perfect man through a computer dating service.. that is until he starts to act weird.. And there you have it. Some of them are pretty amusing due to their outlandish premises (my favourite being number 2) but you get the feeling they were meant to be a) frightening and b) morality plays, unfortunately they fail miserably on both counts. To sum up then, this flick is an obscure curiosity.. for very good reasons. | negative |
it seems like if you are going to post here it going to be a 10 star rating ,nobody ever seems to dislike anything ,well i am honest, some don't like that but here we go, rachel ray show is just plain awful.!!!!!!, this show reminds me of the snl character linda whatever if she had a cooking -whatever show.i must say i liked rachel on the food network on $35-$40 a day but i am sorry she does not have enough life experience to make her interesting day in and day out,give me ham on the street, anthony bourdain , interesting folks,but most of all i find her annoying, she actually told a member of the studio audience to "shut up" yes in a kidding way but shut up is shut up, and who cares about her pet stories, sorry rachel you been cancelled!!!! | negative |
This movie is definately one of my favourite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally uncorruptable characters is an ode to chivalry and the honour code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is flowless and honest to the spectator, wich is an important asset in a genre in wich the the suspense is often achieved through the betrail of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savour every minute, not just to see. | positive |
Film critics of the world, I apologize. It is your job to give advice to the moviegoing public so that they can wisely choose what to spend money on. But I ignored your advice and I have been deeply hurt. However, my decision to see "The Cat in the Hat" wasn't made haphazardly. You see, three years ago all of you critics said that we should all avoid the "calamity" known as "How the Grinch Stole Christmas". Then some friends of mine took me to see it and it turned out to be a colorful, funny and almost hypnotic yuletide treat. So when the critics unleashed their fury against "The Cat in the Hat", another big budget Seuss update with a big name star in the title role, I thought that it must be the same old song. How wrong I was.<br /><br />For five whole minutes I thought I was in the clear. The opening credits are clever, the kids are charming and the production values are top notch. Then the cat showed up. There are many problems from this point on, but the biggest one was the woeful miscasting of Mike Myers. Where "The Grinch" was saved by the inspired casting of Jim Carrey, "The Cat" was destroyed by Myers. He can be very funny when his energies are applied where they belong, comic sketches. Every movie he's made that was truly funny was really just a feature length comedy sketch, from "Wayne's World" to "Austin Powers". So he tries to do the same thing here, it's just that these comedy sketches are more like the stuff that they stick at the end of SNL, not funny, just painful. Not that the writers helped him out any. After the charming prologue the movie turns into an hour of repulsive bodily humor gags, poorly timed pratfalls and insultingly stunted attempts at hip humor. This movie was the most disheartening cinematic experience I have ever had. Period. So much talent and work went into something so vile. I know that the adult stars of this movie will be relatively unscathed by this mess, I just hope that the wonderful Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning will get more chances to show their charms in far better movies. If you are a parent, please avoid this like the plague. With movies like "Elf" and "Brother Bear" currently in theaters, you have far better choices. | negative |
My sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy. | positive |
Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is having problems in her marriage and otherwise--enough to see a psychologist. When her promiscuity gets her into trouble, it also involves a bystander, Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes wrapped up in an investigation to discover the identity of a psycho killer.<br /><br />Dressed to Kill is somewhat important historically. It is one of the earlier examples of a contemporary style of thriller that as of this writing has extensions all the way through Hide and Seek (2005). It's odd then that director Brian De Palma was basically trying to crib Hitchcock. For example, De Palma literally lifts parts of Vertigo (1958) for Dressed to Kill's infamous museum scene. Dressed to Kill's shower scenes, as well as its villain and method of death have similarities to Psycho (1960). De Palma also employs a prominent score with recurrent motifs in the style of Hitchcock's favorite composer Bernard Herrmann. The similarities do not end there.<br /><br />But De Palma, whether by accident or skill, manages to make an oblique turn from, or perhaps transcend, his influence, with Dressed to Kill having an attitude, structure and flow that has been influential. Maybe partially because of this influence, Dressed to Kill is also deeply flawed when viewed at this point in time. Countless subsequent directors have taken their Hitchcock-like De Palma and honed it, improving nearly every element, so that watched now, after 25 years' worth of influenced thrillers, much of Dressed to Kill seems agonizingly paced, structurally clunky and plot-wise inept.<br /><br />One aspect of the film that unfortunately hasn't been improved is Dressed to Kill's sex and nudity scenes. Both Dickinson and Allen treat us to full frontal nudity (Allen's being from a very skewed angle), and De Palma has lingering shots of Dickinson's breasts, strongly implicit masturbation, and more visceral sex scenes than are usually found in contemporary films. Quite a few scenes approach soft-core porn. I'm no fan of prudishness--quite the opposite. Our culture's puritanical, monogamistic, sheltered attitude towards sex and nudity is disturbing to me. So from my perspective, it's lamentable that Dressed to Kill's emphasis on flesh and its pleasures is one of the few aspects in which others have not strongly followed suit or trumped the film. Perhaps it has been desired, but they have not been allowed to follow suit because of cultural controls from conservative stuffed shirts.<br /><br />De Palma's direction of cinematography and the staging of some scenes are also good enough that it is difficult to do something in the same style better than De Palma does it. He has an odd, characteristic approach to close-ups, and he's fond of shots from interesting angles, such as overhead views and James Whale-like tracking across distant cutaways in the sets. Of course later directors have been flashier, but it's difficult to say that they've been better. Viewed for film-making prowess, at least, the museum scene is remarkable in its ability to build very subtle tension over a dropped glove and a glance or two while following Kate through the intricately nested cubes of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.<br /><br />On the other hand, from a point of view caring about the story, and especially if one is expecting to watch a thriller, everything through the museum scene and slightly beyond might seem too slow and silly. Because of its removal from the main genre of the film and its primary concern with directorial panache (as well as cultural facts external to the film), the opening seems like a not very well integrated attempt to titillate and be risqué. Once the first murder occurs, things improve, but because of the film's eventual influence, much of the improvement now seems a bit clichéd and occasionally hokey.<br /><br />The performances are mostly good, although Michael Caine is underused, and Dickinson has to exit sooner than we'd like (but the exit is necessary and very effective). Dressed to Kill is at least likely to hold your interest until the end, but because of facts not contained in the picture itself, hasn't exactly aged well. At this point it is perhaps best to watch the film primarily as a historical relic and as an example--but not the best, even for that era--of some of De Palma's directorial flair. | positive |
Rififi, directed by Jules Dassin, is in line with the Melville crime pictures (particularly Bob le Flameur and to a point Le Cercle Rouge) of being totally focused on story and character and making sure not a word is spoken that doesn't need, and was ahead of its time. Ionically, it still has a kind of professionalism among its characters, a kind of respect (if not for selves than for others, a kind of duty) that rings well in post-WW2 France. Its actors carry faces for these characters that say 'we know what these guys are about', and from there the story takes off. Maybe it's because I have a weak spot for heist pictures, particularly where we see just the nuts and bolts (err, actual physical side) of how a heist is pulled off.<br /><br />One of the problems with how the actual heist is filmed in today's movies is that it's all very fast (i.e. Snatch), or done in ways we've seen too many times before. Dassin, like Melville years later, decided to create practically a silent film of a heist, sound effects included. The tension that builds up in this scene may not top what Melville had in 'Rouge', but on its own level it achieves its own greatness and momentum, and just as crucial originality to what's been done before. There are some kept close-ups, for example, as the safe is being cracked, that mark some of the best I've seen from France at that time. An added plus for the film, aside from the larval-stage new-wave touch to the film, which in the end makes it a little more modern, is that the story works so well and differently. It becomes completely about character at points, and then keeps up the thrills. The last ten to fifteen minutes are down-right miraculous; like with another classic heist picture the Asphalt Jungle, it's not even the last stop that matters, but all about how much one will go past the call of duty, putting humanism over greed.<br /><br />You almost wonder in all the exhilaration of the camera flying by the trees at a high speed with the car that he might just make it. Dassin has here a very entertaining and intuitive film of its genre, with a nifty little musical number as well. | positive |
For anyone who's judged others at first meeting, here is the perfect tutorial on depth of character. The grumpy old lady has a soft, thoughtful heart - and needs new friends. The flighty, unsure, 'ditsy' dame who makes inappropriate, uncomfortable comments - sees deep into your soul and has pure love for all. The cold, prim, proper, neglected wife has passion simmering that could boil over at any minute - given the right setting. The perfect beauty - rich, sweet, partying, pursued by throngs - wants peace, quiet, and love without possessiveness. <br /><br />By taking the time to look beyond the surface, you will find treasures in everyday life, from the least expected sources. All it takes is patience and a touch of enchantment. | positive |
I couldnt believe how well this kid did on screen, you will completely forget that they are actors and loose yourself in the movie. It is like watching home movies with a twist. I recomend this to everyone. Highly. | positive |
OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year. | negative |
Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad) | negative |
MGM tried pairing up and coming young men with the Divine One to give them exposure and try them out as leading men. Gable and Garbo had chemistry in SUSAN LENOX but it was a lousy film. Here in INSPIRATION there is no chemistry whatsoever between Garbo and Robert Montgomery and the script is poor as well. What were they thinking? The modern, fast-talking, wise-crack-snapping Montgomery and the long-suffering Garbo? It is a tale like CAMILLE. Young student falls for woman of the world and is repelled by learning of her past, rejects her, takes her back, rejects her.... you get the picture. Garbo is completely believable as a top Parisian artist's model and completely at home, although bored, with her life at the top of society amidst her artistic friends and their loose morals. Suddenly she is fascinated by this innocent. She finally gives up her life for him and sinks into poverty, only to be rescued by him and set up in a house of her own. Ironically, he intends to marry and keep her on the side - so much for his pure moral ethic of earlier.<br /><br />The scenes are incredibly dull and boring and nothing much happens. Only Marjorie Rambeau as Lulu is able to inject life into the proceedings with such lines as "Unfortunately weak women have strong appetites" and "Odette, Where is thy sting?"<br /><br />Only for Garbo fans. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.