review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.<br /><br />For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.<br /><br />Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.<br /><br />For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer. | negative |
If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.<br /><br />A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.<br /><br />Absolute tripe. | negative |
If you would like to watch an example of how not to make a film, then you need to watch this. I, myself, with no film making experience could do better. The script is laughable with a weak plot and there is no effort to be seen for any intelligent structure. In order to make up for this flaw, you would think the action would be decent, wouldn't you?<br /><br />As the acting, editing and overall piecing together of the film is appalling the only saving grace is the dreadful performance by the lead actor. The reason why he is the saving grace, is because he is so genuinely bad at acting, that he should win an Oscar for it. At least some recognition for making me laugh at him so much.<br /><br />Toss in a dead woman's body after an all male shoot out (where did she come from?), pull the semi automatic trigger tens of times while the soundman pulls off two gunshot effects, reflection of the camera crew in Kool Mo Dee's shades, one and only ONE music track for the WHOLE film, an unoriginal script that has no logic; is a perfect recipe for a really, really bad film. Its actually more fun spotting the errors than actually trying to find something positive. Avoid at all costs. | negative |
The final season of Roseanne was a roller coaster ride of crazy. This final episode does just what a previous comment says, it tells us that as much as we might have thought we knew the characters we did not. Roseanne reaches back to season one, and tells us that this show has been her rendition of her life. She says in this final episode that she changed events and people as she sees fit. Scott was not really with Leon, but he existed. Mark and David married opposite wives in real life, and Dan died when she made him live. As events happened in her life, she changed them in her writing. Don't we all wish we could do that. Don't we all have a moment in time that we wish we could just use an eraser and change to our liking. This is what she did with the entire episode. And to another comment I would say that I don't feel cheated, the family was real in my mind, she just changed the way that events happened in their lives. An A+ ending to an A+ show!!!! | positive |
Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?<br /><br />Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.<br /><br />And from the looks of "Stroker Ace", WAY too much.<br /><br />Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager. <br /><br />Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs. <br /><br />A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards. <br /><br />As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-"Police Academy") gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.<br /><br />It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like "Stroker Ace" where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny. | negative |
Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film! | negative |
There was a great film to be made about Steve Biko. Sadly this wasn't it. Denzel Washington - never the most flexible of actors - is totally unable to convey the great charisma that Biko had. Attenborough's big crowd scenes are laughable. The Soweto massacre wasn't like this, three neat lines of children ( some doing cartwheels!) marching happily into the guns of the soldiers. With Biko dead the film rapidly descends into farce. If the struggle against Apartheid was anything it was a black people's struggle yet somehow we are all supposed to be gripped by the escape of a white man and his family. I'm sure Donald Woods was a decent man and he would be the first to say that Biko was important while he wasn't. Penelope Wilton's accent is pure Hampshire and she seems completely unaware that she is in South Africa at all. at all. The Wood's family dog gets more lines than the black maid. As the family make their escape one the women I saw the film with - incidentally one of only about a dozen black people in a large, full cinema - whispered "This is like the sound of music." She had a point.<br /><br />Overall this is a film by a well-intentioned if somewhat inept white liberal about a radical black people's struggle. And really South Africa needs well-intentioned white liberals like it needs a hole in the head. | negative |
"Citizen X" tells the story of "The Butcher of Rostov", nickname for a heinous and perverse Russian serial killer who claimed 52 lives from 1978-92. The film focuses on the novice detective (Rea) who doggedly pursued the killer against all odds in the face of an uncooperative bureaucracy in self-serving and convenient denial. An HBO product for t.v., the film offers a solid cast, good performances, spares the audience much of the grisly details, but plays out like a docudrama sans the stylistics of similar Hollywood fare. An even and straight-forward dramatization of a serious and comparatively little known story more interesting than "Jack the Ripper". (B) | positive |
When I first got wind of this picture, it was just called "Shepherd" and was supposed to be the film that would put JCVD back into chances of doing theatrical shtuff. I was very well excited about the whole piece.<br /><br />By the time it was titled "The Shepherd: Border Patrol," I was tap-dancing in excitement for this flick. With Isaac Fluorentine at the helm of directing, and JJ Perry pulling stunt coordination, I almost peed me pants in anticipation. Pics were released of JCVD kicking 8 different kinds of arse as well as Scott Adkins playing what I thought was the villain, and I was mind-blown in excitement. I thought it was going to be another epic martial arts situation like Lone Wolf McQuade.<br /><br />Then it came out. I ordered it off Blockbuster online for $20 and was ready for anything. The reviews from vandammefan.net kinda had my ideas alittle altered, but I braced myself. The mail came on day 4 and I ripped open the package. My initial plan was to rush upstairs, rip the face off the cardboard packaging, then smash the case in the proper dynamics so the disc would land in my DVD player. However, I stared at the case for 10 minutes then placed the disc in my player and watched the film.<br /><br />By the time it was over, I was cool as a fool in the pool. The Shepherd is certainly one of my all-time favorite direct-to-video films ever and makes Derailed look like even more of the toilet mess that it is. Sure, some of the fights ran a twee bit short, but they were still VERY awesome. The shootouts were superb, as was Scott Adkins, who SHOULD have been the villain, unlike the forgettable Steven Lord.<br /><br />I highly recommend this flick. Seriously. | positive |
First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.<br /><br />We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.<br /><br />Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho. | negative |
Pleasant story of the community of Pimlico in London who, after an unexploded WW2 bomb explodes, find a Royal Charter stating that the area they live in forms part of Burgundy.<br /><br />This movie works because it appeals to the fantasy a lot of us have about making up our own rules and not having to listen to THEM. A solid cast of British stalwarts, especially Stanley Holloway, makes this more believable.<br /><br />There are some very nice moments in the film, such as when the people have ran out of supplies and other Londoners on the other side of the barricade start throwing food and other things over to them.<br /><br />Even though you always knew Pimlico would become part of the UK again, the people of PImlico and as a consequence the viewer doesn't mind when this happens, leaving a nice happy feeling.<br /><br />It's amazing to think that these low budget movies from a small studio in London still remain so popular over fifty years later. The producers must have got something right. | positive |
The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.<br /><br />This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.<br /><br />All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn. | negative |
I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie. | positive |
1956's The Man Who Knew Too Much is exceptional entertainment. To those who prefer the 1934 original, I will say that that one is faster paced and wittier. However, even though the American version was (heaven forbid!) a big budget blockbuster, I believe it blows the British version out of the water. I think this is one of Hitchcock's 10 best-no small feat considering he made over 50 films and many of them were among the greatest of all time. I find so many things to love:<br /><br />1)James Stewart, America's favorite everyman for so many years, does an excellent job playing the distressed father here. He can make any film enjoyable, and working with such a likeable character in such a gripping story, he had me rooting for him very intensely. Leslie Banks in the original is nothing in comparison.<br /><br />2)Doris Day. Yes Doris Day. Despite all the criticisms directed toward her, I think she makes the loving wife/mother an extremely sympathetic person. I disagree with the negative remarks towards her character; just because she is soft-spoken and gentle it doesn't mean she is docile and helpless. I don't want to spoil anything, but she does make a crucial discovery by herself after her husband has failed. She gives the story a level of warmth that just wasn't there in the first one, and for those who care about that this version is the way to go. And I loved Que Sera Sera; I think it is one of the most beautiful songs I've ever heard and deservedly won its Oscar. It elevated the film to another level.<br /><br />3)The Albert Hall sequence. I don't think it was too long at all; I think the suspense built the whole time to that terrific crescendo and Hitchcock's direction in this scene was absolutely brilliant. And the assassin was truly frightening. <br /><br />4)The ending really put a smile on my face; even after the aforementioned scene was over I found the rescue scene to be exciting and it was great to see the charming family together again. The last line in the film is highly amusing. I don't think the film started out slowly; Hithcock was trying to get us to know and like the McKennas and he did a great job. I wasn't a huge fan of the kid playing Hank, but I didn't have a problem with him. Since Hank was Ben and Jo's kid I cared about him too; it's not like he was a brat or anything. <br /><br />I found no major flaws in this movie and so many major and minor virtues. Way to go Hitch! | positive |
I disagree in calling this a stoner movie just because weed also makes an appearance. I can't imagine this as even approaching "stoner classic." That would be like calling Singles a "grunge film." The movie definitely plods along with a murky plot. At times I wondered if the script had either been dropped and shuffled or if they lost it entirely and just tried to wing it. Watching this movie reminded me of watching children play-acting and making the story up as they go along.<br /><br />The characters are wooden, the dialog is taxed, and the whole story seems to be completely disconnected. Who got killed? When? What? And this is how you act when your friend overdoses? Complete lack of emotion and utter disconnect from reality.<br /><br />As for the droning guitar soundtrack that accompanies each scene: enough! It was like watching the opening menu screen where the same track loops endlessly in the background, neither moving forward or back.<br /><br />I kept watching and hoping that the plot would somehow fall in to order, the acting and dialog would improve or something, somehow would focus this mess in to a coherent movie. After 112 minutes, it never happened. | negative |
I enjoy watching people doing breakdance, especially if they do it as well as in the best scenes of this movie which takes you to a disco club called "Roxy". Especially at Christmas time, because there also appears a "MC Santa Claus".<br /><br />Even if this is an old film, and even if I have videotaped it from TV, when the State Movie Archive of Finland showed this in the summer of 2004 on their own big screen, I went there to check it out. It's much more enjoyable on big screen than on TV.<br /><br />Even if many people here think that watching this on big screen is a waste of money for the ticket cost, I disagree with this and I think that when I paid my ticket, I got the money's worth by seeing this, as it is on big screen, especially seated on front row of the cinema, an unforgettable experience, and much better than just on video. | positive |
This film is about a group of extra terrestrial gay black men exterminating females on Earth, in order to create a gay Universe.<br /><br />I watched it with the intent of seeing how bad it was. Still, I was shocked at how bad it was. It looked more like a film made 50 years ago. The acting, if any, is ultra bad. The sets and props are so ridiculously fake, making any college film look mega budget. And the special effects are laughably simple, indeed jaw dropping as others have commented, but jaw droppingly embarrassing.<br /><br />One has to be severely intoxicated, or in an altered state of consciousness in order to appreciate this film. If I was from Denmark, I would be severely embarrassed and humiliated that my countrymen produced such a horrifyingly bad film. | negative |
I hope this group of film-makers never re-unites. | negative |
It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.<br /><br />Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.<br /><br />Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.<br /><br />The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.<br /><br />Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.<br /><br />No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.<br /><br />Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture. | negative |
While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree. | negative |
The film isn't perfect by any means but despite this it is very fun and amusing to watch. I am the first one to agree that Victor Fox isn't really that attractive and his music and style are pretty cheesy. I also agree that the film has some odd distractions and some scenes don't work well. So what? If it makes you smile and you enjoy it who cares? Does every film have to make sense? Does every film have to be perfect? No. A person could get razed admitting that they love this film. Again, so what? It's got lovable characters, it's well shot, the acting is mostly good, it never becomes too maudlin or dramatic, it's quirky. Look at how many people love I Dream of Jeannie. Is it perfect? Heck no! And while this is very different, I say check it out and you'll be in a good mood after you see it. | positive |
This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie. | negative |
I was watching this movie and getting increasingly bored with the silly plot that was going nowhere, when suddenly, the story takes a surreal turn for the worse and has an actor playing herself. Oh how I guffawed. Because it's sooooo funny, isn't it? We know Julia Roberts is playing the character of Tess, and here they are, in the film, cracking the joke that the character of Tess looks a bit like Julia Roberts. So Julia plays someone impersonating Julia. How well she does this, we'll never know, because 99.999% of the audience don't actually know Julia Roberts personally (and reading about her in Hello magazine doesn't count). <br /><br />And then Bruce Willis turns up! Apparently, he's Julia Roberts' best friend. Well, he is in the film... how would I know whether or not Bruce Willis and Julia Roberts even know each other? I'm not in the least bit interested in the personal lives of actors - I just pay my money and expect them to do the job they're paid to do. Anyway they start cracking jokes about the plot twist in the film where Willis (rather unconvincingly) plays a psychiatrist... the one with the little kid in it... you know the one? I don't, I've forgotten what it's called. Willis even drops in a comment about how well that film did at the box office - how modest of you Mr Willis!<br /><br />The problem is that, not only are these scenes pointless and horribly horribly self-indulgent, it also remind us, the viewers, that we're simply watching a bunch of actors strutting around and getting paid vast sums of money for very little effort. You see, when I see a movie, I want to suspend disbelief and forget that I'm watching actors - I want to believe in the story I'm watching. When you start pulling the scenery down, mid- movie, you simply ruin the illusion for me.<br /><br />You know that a TV series has jumped the shark when it starts introducing celebrities, playing themselves (stand up and be counted The Simpsons, Friends, etc.), but this is the first time I've seen a movie jump the shark. I usually stay away from movies like that (e.g. Scary Movie, The Naked Gun, etc.). The trouble is, I honestly never thought the Ocean's 11 films would go in this direction. What a shame.<br /><br />So with suspension of disbelief thrown out the window, and the plot now languishing in the movie then cracks the most wicked joke of all on the audience - the heist actually happened way back in the story, and the final 90 minutes or so of the film was pointless posturing. Yes, that's right: Steven Soderwhatsit and his actor friends all get up, point at us the audience and say, "Ha haaa... you've all been had... thanks for your money!". Then they give us the single fingered salute.<br /><br />Well, right back at you. I didn't actually pay to see this movie... I downloaded the DVD for nothing. How d'ya like them apples? Now THAT'S a plot twist. | negative |
Someone says this anime could be offensive for girls... not really. Embarrassing situations are funny; first time i see this series i was in the video store, people around me started laughing, doesn't matter the age or gender. A teacher said that in order to guarantee the attention of someone in a book the beginning must be entertaining and the ending shouldn't be obvious by just reading the last page. During the first minutes in the series the boy is hit by a car, during the last moments of the series, the same car appears.. Episodes had a touching and funny ending, specially last one. I don't regret to buy these series. | positive |
While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love. | negative |
I can't seem to find anything that is good about this miniseries. Why the hell would you ban chocolate when u could ban something far more practical like smoking or alcohol? Also the fact that its an Australian program and its all set in england and everyone is faking british accents is stupid. Overall i think that this show is Unrealistic and cheap. | negative |
"Fear Of A Black Hat" is everything the (much weaker) "CB-4" SHOULD have been. Rusty Cundieff's satirical eye is ruthless, as he folds, spindles, and mutilates every aspect of hip-hop trends and culture. Does "FoaBH" resemble Spinal Tap? Yes, a bit. Is it derivative of Spinal Tap? No, not really. The aim is more focused, the satire is better focused, and to be honest, it's funnier. | positive |
I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula | negative |
As of this writing John Carpenter's 'Halloween' is nearing it's 30th anniversary. It has since spawned 7 sequels, a remake, a whole mess of imitations and every year around Halloween when they do those 'Top 10 Scariest Movies' lists it's always on there. That's quite amazing for a film that was made on a budget of around $300,000 and featured a then almost completely unknown cast of up and coming young talent. I could go on and on, but the big question here is: How does the film hold up today? And all I can say to that is, fantastically! <br /><br />Pros: A simple, but spooky opening credits sequence that really sets the mood. An unforgettable and goosebump-inducing score by director/co-writer John Carpenter and Alan Howarth. Great cinematography. Stellar direction by Carpenter who keeps the suspense high, gets some great shots, and is careful not to show too much of his villain. Good performances from the then mostly unknown cast. A good sense of humor. Michael Myers is one scary, evil guy. A lot of eerie moments that'll stay with you. The pace is slow, but steady and never drags. Unlike most other slasher films, this one is more about suspense and terror than blood and a big body count.<br /><br />Cons: Probably not nearly as scary now as it was then. Many of the goofs really stand out. <br /><br />Final thoughts: I want to start out this section by saying this is not my favorite film in the series. I know that's not a popular opinion, but it's really how I feel. Despite that it truly is an important film that keeps reaching new generations of film buffs. And just because it's been remade for a new generation doesn't mean it'll be forgotten. No way, no how.<br /><br />My rating: 5/5 | positive |
Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name. | negative |
ok we have a film that some are calling one of the best movies ever..but i'm sitting here thinking hell the f!, the storys sux{ which there is no story], the diolouge is quite plain, artisticly nothing great!, and the acting is nothing real out standing, so if you want to pretend to be arty say you like it, but if you have a real view say you don't like it or if you did explain why! | negative |
SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe. | negative |
I first came across 'My Tutor Friend' accidentally one or two years ago while TV surfing. Prior to that, I'd never watched any Korean films before in my whole life, so MTF was really the first Korean film I've ever watched. And- what a delightful surprise! I was thoroughly amused from the beginning to end, and had a great time laughing. Its comic style is quite different from those of the Hong Kong comic films (which I've been to used to all my life and hence tired of as well), breathing fresh air into my humdrum film viewing experience. I thought there're quite a few scenes and tricks in MTF that are pretty hilarious, witty, and original too.<br /><br />I watched MTF the second time a few days ago, and having watched it once already, the surprise/comic effect on me kind of mitigated. That has, however, by no means affected negatively my opinion of the film. Instead, something else came through this time- it moved me- the story about how two young, seemingly 'enemies' who're utterly incompatible get thrown together, and how they gradually resolve their differences and start caring for each other without realizing the feelings themselves, reminds me of the long gone high school days. To me, Su Wan and Ji Hoon ARE actually compatible as they both have something that is pure and genuine inside them, a quality that separates them from people like say, Ji Hoon's sassy girlfriend.<br /><br />The film is divided into two distinct parts- the 1st part deals with the 'fight' between Su Wan and Ji Hoon, and is more violent and faster in pace. After Ji Hoon gets a pass in his final examination and Su Wan dances the (in Ji Hoon's opinion) provocative dance, things start to change. The pace slows down and... Ji Hoon suddenly realizes he cares for Su Wan more than he could ever imagine. So the 2nd part deals with the development of their mutual feelings, leading of course to a happy ending accompanied by a final showdown with the gang boss.<br /><br />Just one last comment. I find this to be a bit unbelievable- the fact that a 21-year-old self-proclaimed 'bad boy' would feel embarrassed being almost naked in front of the girl he bullies and loses his 'cool' is just a little... odd. I guess that shows that Ji Hoon is just a boy pure at heart and isn't really what his appearance seems. Btw, Kwong San Woo (Ji Hoon) DOES have a sexy body and perfect figure! ;-) <br /><br />MTF is definitely on my list of top 10 favorite films of all time. | positive |
despite the occasionally stilted acting and "seen-it-all-before" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.<br /><br />It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now<br /><br />honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development<br /><br />i was glad i watched it | positive |
Now days, most people don't watch classic movies, such as this. Most of friends only watch movies from the '90s to present. Thats kinda stingy. <br /><br />Most old movies like this are masterpieces, unique in their own way. Only because, back when these movies were being thought of and made, thats when ideas were fresh. Now people strain just to think of new ideas. <br /><br />Anyway, to the movie. For true fans of classic horror. This is for you. The movie is based with a investigator from Scotland Yard investigating the disappearance of an movie actor, and stumbles on to three other strange occurrences with past residents of the same house. <br /><br />I won't say anymore, for I will ruin the movie more than I already have. But it is a terrific movie for as old as it is. And would never mind watching it again! | positive |
"Edge of the City" is another movie that owes a lot of credit to "On the Waterfront". From it's NYC locations, to its score, to the belief that whatever trouble you may be in, you can somehow right your wrongs.<br /><br />"Edge" also deals with ideas like loyalty and racism. In my opinion, that is where the movie does not succeed like "Waterfront". At 85 minutes the movie rushes through the establishment of relationships, and ties everything up so quickly that much of it seems forced and unbelievable.<br /><br />Possible Spoilers****<br /><br />The relationship between Sidney Poitier and John Cassavettes could have been further developed in the beginning. I don't believe that these two characters, from two very different places would have built such a strong relationship so quickly. <br /><br />I think that the whole love sub-plot with Cassavettes could have been eliminated. He is so awkward with a woman that it becomes painful to watch. The only reason why it is in the movie is so that she can motivate him to do the right thing at the end. There are other ways that they could have shown this. I would have also liked to see some scenes of Axel in the army to illustrate why he is the way he is.<br /><br />The acting is excellent. Poitier is terrific in a role that is beautifully written. His role as Tyler is interesting and multi-layered, and (especially for 1957), a man who is confident, respected, and intelligent. Cassavettes, as Axel North, while very good, does not seem quite right for the part. Warden is terrific as the boss who knows Axel's secret (although his fight scene with Cassavettes at the end is staged horribly. Too many break-away boxes). I thought Ruby Dee was wonderful in role of Poitier's wife.<br /><br />On the whole, "Edge of the City" is a smart, movie with a very good cast that tries too hard to be an interesting noir style picture, without taking the time to let the drama build.<br /><br />7 out of 10 | positive |
Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie. | negative |
I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point... | negative |
I would say for it's time, this movie was awesome...and yes if you have no desire to become a Christian, then why bother watching it. I saw this movie after I had already been saved and found it to be very moving. I see now they have taken these movies to another level and have created the Left Behind series...they run a close comparison and definitely are more modern to reach people. I think in order to actually judge this movie, you should see it,,,there are 3 or 4 of them in the series if I am not mistaken...don't use our comments to judge, see the movie for yourself!! God will bless you if that is why you are watching them. | positive |
This movie is about basically human relations, and the interaction between them. The main character is an old lady who at the twilight of her life starts a journey to her past, doing an analysis of how she lived her life. This journey is precipitated because of the sons economic crisis and his intentions to put her in a nursing home. It is a very honest look to some issues that we all ask ourselves at some point in life, and there is plenty of secondary ideas to discuss in this movie such as family legacy, real love, marriage or destiny. although this type of movie melodramas are nothing new, this one can be useful to watch it with family members to discuss some ideas. There is a good performance by the actors and the characters are very believable, but because of the time some characters are maybe not fully developed. I really recommend this movie for a quiet Saturday afternoon. | positive |
I'd first heard of this show in 2005, first online and then by viewing (and of course, buying)the typically gorgeous, BBC tie-in book. Then I got the DVD; it did not disappoint! I'd been hoping for years someone would make a science fiction program with the emphasis on the thrill of discovery rather than aliens, laser gun fights and other Hollywood 'boogieman' gimmicks! Thank you, Joe Ahearne (also for your Dr. Who work, and Ultraviolet--the mini-series; not the crap movie of the same name)! What compelled me to write this now (2 yrs. later) was that I'd just seen SUNSHINE last night. And what appeared to be in the same family as SPACE ODYSSEY turned into (about 2/3rds of the way in) Freddy Krueger meets 2010! That was when SPACE ODYSSEY really stood out as a positive example of how to do a REAL science fiction film; more science, less fiction! ODYSSEY (like SUNSHINE) also dealt with astronaut shortcomings (Zoe's failed EVA, Ivan's over exertions on Venus, the spats with mission control) and the sheer danger of exploring new planets with unfamiliar dangers (the fatal radiation spike on Mars). I would've easily paid to see this in a theater (I-Max, anyone?). And to top it all, not only were the space vistas jaw droppingly beautiful, but the characters were nicely drawn, too. I found their interplay more realistic than the wall-slamming histrionics of SUNSHINE's Icarus 2 crew (Icarus; dumb name for a solar mission--did anyone read the mythology of Icarus??). Sometimes it takes a not-so-good film to compel one to re-watch a better film. As an armchair astronaut, I'd trade my passage on Icarus for a seat on Pegasus any day. In all fairness, however, the visuals of SUNSHINE are quite stunning, though, and quite memorable. Which is why I was so strongly rooting for it to succeed as an honest-to-goodness sci-fi film. So, even though this review is almost a back-door review of SUNSHINE, I hope it's read for what it was meant to be; strong support for a BBC telefilm that succeeds where most big-budget, bloated cinematic spectacles fail. SPACE ODYSSEY (a.k.a. VOYAGE TO THE PLANETS here in the States) whets the appetite for solid, SCIENCE-fiction and delivers a banquet. I very much enjoyed the pseudo-documentary approach as well. As for the time lag/light-speed quibbles, they ARE addressed, if you pay attention. Where SUNSHINE melts, ODYSSEY keeps its cool. If you're considering going to the movies for another dose of SUNSHINE, stay in; go for a true SPACE ODYSSEY instead! | positive |
For Columbo fans, such as myself, this is the episode of episodes that made a case for why Columbo was so popular, and just how good it really was. Ruth Gordon has a field day (as ever) playing the wittily intelligent crime novelist Abigail Mitchell. Seems Abigail calls her nephew-in-law to sign some papers making him her heir. She never got over her niece's death, and is convinced her dead niece's husband (Charles Frank) did the dirty deed. To tell more would be unthinkable. Mariette Hartley has a sly role as Abigail's personal assistant. This episode of Columbo is in a class by itself. It's a truly well made television movie. I recommend it most highly. | positive |
There are no words to explain how bad NIGHTMARE WEEKEND is. It simply defies description. Something about a computer that can change personal objects into silver balls that enter the victims' mouth, which kills them or turns them into zombies. The whole thing is so wonky that it's stunning. There's also a girl with personal computer in her room and the computer talks via a hand puppet!!!!!!!! I'm not making this stuff up. The computer also controls things like cars, even though there's nothing linking the computer with the vehicle.<br /><br />The "film" is total trash. Surreal bad trash. Spectacularly, one-of-a-kind bad trash. There's a lot of sex scenes thrown here and there, which aren't very hot or erotic. There's even one scene where a woman seemingly makes love or wants to French kiss a tarantula, which had me rolling on the floor.<br /><br />Definitely one of the worst movies ever made. Up there with the equally wretched direct-to-home video BOARDINGHOUSE, or BOOGEYMAN II (both NIGHTMARE WEEKEND and BOOGEYMAN II have scenes with a killer toothbrush!). At least it's fun to watch it and try to make sense of whatever is going on. | negative |
I just finished this movie and my only comment is "OH! WOW!". Jennifer Beals is ok as the fiancee, but Yancy Butler as the female dance instructor is pure sexual dynamite! Having watched her in WITCHBLADE, I was not prepared for the pure unadulterated sensuality and raw sexual excitement she launches onto the screen.<br /><br />I gotta see THIS movie again....if only for Yancy Butler as Corrinne! | positive |
"L'Ossessa" (released in English under many titles and the eeriest of them certainly is "The eerie midnight horror show") is one of the best Italian rip-offs of "The Exorcist". To really appreciate this film you should have a sense of humor. "L'Ossessa" is at the same time sleazy (but naive), pathetic and sometimes even moving.<br /><br />Danila (Stella Carnacina), an art student, goes to an old church to see the statue she's going to restore. It's a wooden statue of Christ, a demonic Christ, maybe already overcome by evil, or fighting against it, or perhaps planning dark deeds. The face shows infinite torment. The statue dates from the 15th century. Danila is impressed by the mastery shown by the sculptor - the statue seems almost alive! She lives with her parents. Her mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) lives a dissolute life and doesn't care too much for keeping up appearances. Her father Mario (Chris Avram) observes everything with disenchanted eyes.<br /><br />The wooden statue will soon assume a human form (Ivan Rassimov) and possess Danila in the carnal and spiritual sense. An amazing scene! The poor Danila, from now on, will suffer the torments of hell.<br /><br />Danila (the lovely Stella Carnacina) was ravished, violated, possessed by the devil and now following his orders, she will try to seduce others. Ain't she emulating her sleazy mother Luisa (Lucretia Love) who feels great pleasure when her lover whips her with a bunch of roses? There is a scene so ridiculous as to be sublime and moving, when Stella Carnacina runs in despair through the narrow streets (possessed by the devil, remember?) of a small Italian town screaming her heart out. Luigi Pistilli is a very good exorcist. His performance is, as usual, intense. The exorcism scenes (particularlly the final battle) are very, very amateurish, but this will only enhance the fun (and/or emotion?) if you've really got a sense of humor.<br /><br />Stella Carnacina is beautiful and looks fresh and innocent, and that's a factor that adds to your pleasure when she's naked, but I think that the film could have explored more her natural beauty. Lucretia Love is a very good sleaze companion (her nude scene with the roses... well.:) <br /><br />Other Italian exorcist rip-offs I would like to recommend for you are: <br /><br />Malabimba (very sleazy and released uncut and digitally restored) <br /><br />"Evil Eye" (Malocchio) - "The Exorcist" was the main source of inspiration for "Evil Eye", but others films, like, for instance, "Rosemary's Baby" should also be taken into account. "Evil Eye" is completely over the top. Not that sleazy but with plenty of gorgeous Italian and Spanish actresses. You'll be drooling all over the film. The film is ridiculous, the story doesn't make any sense, but if you see it in the right mood you might feel moved! - a diabolical sect, possession, murders, despair, love, investigation and beautiful women all around. A wild ride! <br /><br />If you liked "Evil Eye", see also "Ring of Darkness" (Un'Ombra nell'ombra). This film can be found in the alternative market. Search this title in the IMDb. There are good reviews about it.<br /><br />P.S. - "L'Ossessa" has many different faces. It's exploitative, but it can also be serious and moving. It's cheap, cheesy... sleazy (but not that much) and it has an underlying "moral" message. This strange brew can sometimes be very funny. We all already know that "L'Ossessa" is an "Exorcist" rip-off so why can't we see it on its own terms? Yes, Mario Gariazzo was trying to earn a fast buck, but he was able get the most out of a shoestring budget. The story is well told, the film is atmospheric and overall the actors are committed to their roles. See the film with an open mind and you may discover two or three new things. | positive |
A lot has been said about Shinjuku Triad Society as the first true "Miike" film and I thought this sort of description might have been a cliché. But, like all clichés, it is based on the truth. All the Miike trademarks are here, the violence, the black humour, the homosexuality, the taboo testing and the difficult to like central character. Shinjuku is however, one of Miike's most perfectly formed films. He says in an interview that if he made it again it would be different, but not necessarily better. I think what he means is that the film possesses a truly captivating energy and raw edge which seems so fresh that although he might be able to capture a more visually or technically complex movie he could not replicate or better the purity of this film. <br /><br />As you might expect, the violence is utterly visceral, gushing blood and gritty beatings are supplemented by a fantastic scene in which a woman has a chair smashed over her face. (Only a Miike film could let you get away with a sentence like that.) The film has a fantastic pace, unlike Dead or Alive which begins and ends strongly and dips in the middle. Dead or Alive also deals with similar issues, Miike is clearly concerned about the relations between the Japanese and Chinese in the postwar period and this emotive subject is handled well here, the central character really coming to life when you begin to understand his past. <br /><br />I cannot sing Shinjuku's praises enough. I do not want to give away too much. This is Miike before he began to use CGI to animate his films and is almost reminiscent of something like Kitano's Sonatine. The central characters are superbly realized and the final twist guarantees that as soon as the film has finished you'll be popping it back on again to work it all out. | positive |
is not a bad movie but the acting and the screenplay can be better. I like this movie because i have a life that is in good part like the one in the movie. is hard for a lost generation to get a life in Romania, and 90 percent of us choose something else, and that something else includes dealing with people with "bad habits" if you understand me but that comes with the territory. this movie represent me and i like it. i have a rage in me that i barley talk with people, i live in a messed up society and i can't fit in and i don't want to,and that's the story of movie also, if you r like me you can understand the true movie, if not you will find it easy and cheap. | positive |
This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000! | positive |
With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.<br /><br />The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase. | negative |
I'm on the opposite end of the previous comment.<br /><br />First of all, I don't think this was intended to be a straight sequel to "The Jerk". I mean, it's not titled "The Jerk 2"... it's "The Jerk, Too", which leads me to believe that while a lot of the character names are the same, it actually revolves around a completely different person.<br /><br />Think about it: Virtually no connection to the previous movie, other than character names; a totally different story; different cast; and the fact that it's a partial musical.<br /><br />I say give this movie some credit. It does have plenty of laughs in it.. Mark Blankfield at his prime. | positive |
As a helpful warning for others, I believe "Skeleton Man" is actually worse than "Raptor Island." I have been using RI as an example of the worst original movie presented on the Sci-Fi channel, but SM is the most laughably incoherent and wretchedly designed movie I have yet seen. Yes, I did watch almost the whole thing, coming into it about 35 minutes into it. It drew me in with its pure ineptitude. What was Sci-Fi thinking? Once Skeleton Man and the surviving platoon leader (or whatever he was--I'm not good on military unit terminology) reached the chemical plant, the movie moved into a zone of impossible nonsense that was almost mesmerizing. I had the same idea as another viewer who wondered if more than one movie had someone been edited together to make one terrible whole. | negative |
Dear Readers,<br /><br />I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.<br /><br />An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.<br /><br />Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.<br /><br />With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.<br /><br />Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod<br /><br />Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle. | negative |
Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.<br /><br />It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King. | negative |
- A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .<br /><br />- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't "real". These scares just don't work.<br /><br />- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these "actors" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? <br /><br />- I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie. | negative |
Considering John Doe apparently inspired Kyle XY's creator I was expecting its pilot to be quite interesting. However I probably had too high expectations because I was quite disappointed by it. First they turned the protagonist into a freak who had the crazy idea of showing off his amazing knowledge in front of an audience, in a public area. So after that scene I began to worry that it was just entertainment. But the problem is that it got worse as none of the other characters were properly introduced. They focused too much on John Doe which made the story far less intriguing. I was also slightly disappointed by Dominic Purcell's performance because I found he didn't make a believable John Doe. An other problem was the police story. It really felt like déjà vu and it wasn't a pleasant sensation. It leads us to the worst issue in the bunch, the episodic format. I could already see the fillers coming one after an other.<br /><br />So overall I was very disappointed by it and don't recommend it to anyone. Considering how bad it was I better understand now why the show got canceled. In some way I have the impression that it missed its target, developing characters to help the protagonist find his own identity. It's sad because there was potential, like the people he met at the club. The production quality was also quite good and the casting correct. But I'll never know if it got better, probably not, because I don't plan to watch the next episode. | negative |
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone. | negative |
I ended up liking this movie but it was not the easiest to get through. What makes the movie great is the music and the scenery. The songs are beautiful and the musicians are talented. A great job was done to show different settings for the Rom people.<br /><br />However, the viewer was not guided enough. A more in depth history of the Rom people would have been nice. Only a fraction of the of the spoken words were given English subtitles. In addition, more explanations about the settings and who was their and some of their challenges would have been appreciated too. It would have helped if there were a narrator too explain about customs, dress and music. | positive |
The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror. | negative |
[WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS]<br /><br />I have this adult friend for whom the notion that her parents have sex makes her terribly uneasy. She came to mind when I reflected on the audience's reaction to "The Mother." <br /><br />People gasped when May (Anne Reid) writhed passionately in bed with her younger hunk lover, Darren (Daniel Craig) or later saw sexually explicit drawings by May. I doubt the audience was aghast at the nudity or the drawings' content as much as feeling uneasy at seeing a woman in her 60s rapturously enjoying sex.<br /><br />Screenwriter Hanif Kureishi ("My Beautiful Laundrette," "My Son the Fanatic") again proves why he's among the most trenchant storytellers on either side of the Atlantic. His story's not easy to take. This searing family drama isn't a film you can claim you enjoyed watching because it's raw, complex, and often makes us very uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it's powerfully good stuff.<br /><br />Kureishi and Roger Michell (who directed "Notting Hill," of all things) craft an unsentimental, wrenching and superbly-acted portrait of an older woman who realizes, after all these years, she can and should still enjoy all of life's pleasures. In a wonderfully epiphanous moment, when her son, Bobby, asks her not to be difficult, May shoots back, "Why not?"<br /><br />Why not, indeed.<br /><br />Anne Reid deserves an Oscar nomination for her turn as May. It's subtle, restrained, powerful and sad, often all at the same time. Watch Reid when May observes Darren and Paula (Cathryn Bradshaw) in a seemingly passionate clutch in a pub. Or, when she begs Paula to open the front door after a disastrous date. Reid's eyes and face reveal all of May's anguish and despair. In the film's most devastating moment, May drops to her knees before Darren, willing to do anything for him, only asking him to be kind. This is a tremendously gutsy performance by a remarkable actress.<br /><br />I enjoyed Michell's use of natural sound, especially when May and Toots first arrive at Bobby's place. It perfectly illustrated the cacophony around May and Toots, the flippant manner in which their own family welcomes them.<br /><br />This film, at times, reminded me of the honesty and rawness of Mike Leigh's work, except "The Mother" hangs on to a slight sense of optimism to keep afloat.<br /><br />My one quibble: Michell's decision to give May and Darren's first love scene an almost cheesy sensibility. The lovers remain out of focus while, in the foreground, a white curtain flutters gently in the breeze. And the only sound is of May in the throes of passion.<br /><br />The problem with Michell's approach is that both Reid and Craig, who completely envelops the role of Darren, plough their way so fearlessly into these roles that it's unfair to hide their characters' almost primitive energy from the audience. Especially since Michell has no qualms about making later sex scenes visceral.<br /><br />This film doesn't have immensely likable characters. We sympathize with May, but she, too, causes her daughter's suffering. But I doubt Kureishi intended to people his story with likable folk. His point, I believe, was to unmask a family that's already cracking when something emotionally cataclysmic happens. It's unflinching in its candor and ultimately unforgettable. | positive |
OK. I know that the wanna-be John Hughes movies of the 80s were all unilaterally flat, so the expectations for this film ran pretty low.<br /><br />Still, after sitting through this crap there's one key thing I can't seem to get out of my head:<br /><br />I just sat through an 80s Rob Lowe movie that had no nudity and only hints of sex in them.<br /><br />The acting is awful, the characters boring and flat, the portrayal of Oxford an absolute insult, and the rowing scenes unexciting, uneventful, and inaccurate.<br /><br />Unless you've got some wierd Ally Sheedy or Amanda Pays (or I guess, Rob Lowe) fetish, there's really no reason to see this one. | negative |
Joseph Conrad's timeless novel, Heart of Darkness, was depicted in the 1994 movie. I have read Conrad's novel, and I must say, even though I prefer the novel itself, the movie was a great depiction. The set and costume designs brought Conrad's novel to life on the screen as we followed Marlow's journey. The acting also brought the characters to life through the mannerisms, voices, and personalities. If you have read the novel, I recommend that you also view this movie. If you have not read the novel, however, the movie may be harder to follow. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is too full of action, emotion, and information to be made into a movie that is a little over an hour and a half long. Therefore, if you have not read the novel, the plot in the movie may seem too cluttered to follow. Overall I gave this movie a seven out of ten. The basic plot of the novel was brought forth to the screen with great sets, costumes, and acting. Nothing can replace Joseph Conrad's original work however. | positive |
this one is about a homicide detective who battles a couple of young rich kids who have nothing better to do than plan an intricate murder and cover it up, they seem to outwit the police force seemingly at will. they taunt the detective by planting clues and leading them off on a wild goose chase. this one has a decent plot with a few good twists at the end of the movie, Sandra Bullock does a fine job in this one as a woman on the edge, not sure of herself and battling her inner demons, she can't seem to keep a man in her life, especially partners, they seem to keep leaving her for some reason. Altogether this isn't a bad film, it keeps you guessing all the way the very shocking ending. | positive |
When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.<br /><br />Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.<br /><br />The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn. | positive |
What a delightful romp a very competently made film that has so much charm and a feelgood factor that a lot of romantic comedies lack. Einstein is brilliantly acted by Walter Matthau, while Meg Ryan's Catherine is unforgettable better than I have seen her in those films opposite Tom Hanks as the young mathematician struggling to be recognized.<br /><br />You don't need to be a young woman to understand Catherine's struggle and feel sympathetic for her immediately, and as a young man it's easy to understand what must have gone through Ed's (Tim Robbins) mind in pursuing his true love. There's universal appeal in these emotions, even if I.Q. keeps it all light, fun and tied up nicely.<br /><br />Sure it's not heavy, but if you look there are some subtexts. People remember Albert Einstein as a scientist yet he was a great spiritualist; his sayings such as something along the lines of, 'If it is not impossible, then why do it?' suggest he is a believer in fulfilling higher goals beyond one's immediate grasp. In this film, there are questions of what an accident really is such as whether Albert and his whacky sidekicks' intervention in prying Catherine away from stiff-upper-lip, loveless James (Stephen Fry who gives this otherwise cardboard character life and you cannot help but feel for his lack of feeling) counts. How much intervention happens in our lives that we do not see, and comes across as serendipitous?<br /><br />And of course, we'd like to think in real life, despite what we often observe of the people we know, that we Edwards get the Catherines and Jameses have to learn how to defrost the icewater in their veins. How nice to know that it might work out in I.Q.'s innocent (and disturbingly, exclusively Caucasian) Eisenhower-era land of make-believe. | positive |
With this movie, it's all about style, atmosphere, and acting. True, I didn't believe all of the plot developments, but it didn't matter- the terrific acting, the unexpected plot twists, and the wonderful atmosphere sucked me right in, and carried me along for the ride, and I had a great time. Kenneth Branagh is not only a great actor but a master of accents, and he proves it once again with a flawless Georgia accent. He's surrounded by so much talent in supporting roles (Robert Downey, Jr., Embeth Davidtz from Schindler's List and Fallen, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, and Robert Duvall) that I was simply blown away. I recently bought a copy of this movie, and I never tire of watching it. Simply one of the best thrillers of the year. If you've ignored this movie (and chances are you have), then I suggest you check it out. | positive |
Well-done ghost story that will give you the creeps and some pretty fair scares along the way. The story unfolds slowly, building atmosphere all the way until you're ready to see the woman in black. You won't forget her once you've seen her. No gore, no knives, no hockey masks--just a well-constructed story that is best viewed at night with the lights out. | positive |
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow
Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel. | negative |
While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it! | negative |
Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.<br /><br />Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.<br /><br />The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though. | negative |
I don't care what anyone says, this movie was crap. The only thing it had going for it was camera work which was very well done. As for the dialogue I have heard so many people talk about...it sucked too. Yes it was honest and true to life, but so what, I can hear anyone talk like that on the street, or in a fast food joint. What made the dialogue good in movies like Pulp Fiction, and Gosford Park was the fact that it is WRITTEN dialogue, that takes time to think through. Another thing was that the director should not have put himself in the picture. I believe that the male character could have been a lot stronger, but instead it seemed weak. In fact the movie seemed to revolve around the male character, and then he completely disappears in the last twenty minutes. The girl in the film I found completely repulsive, not in appearance, but in her needy needy ways. Saying she is in love with a guy, and actually getting jealous of him the next day, what a crock of crap. Final thing: the sound was terrible, and I hope it was only something that plagued my theater instead of actually being on the final cut of the film. There was a constant buzzing sound during several scenes and it was actually taking away from the talking going on. The one good thing again was Blood's job as the DP, but the actress that played the main guy's ex girlfriend did a very good job as well. These two things couldn't save an ultimately terrible movie, which I refuse to call a film.<br /><br /> 2/10 | negative |
Back in 74 Eric Monte made the classic T.V show Good Times. JJ has always been my favorite and I love watching the Reruns on T.V Land. Jimmie Walker always seemed to be the star and not Esther Rolle. John Amos most of the time felt a little jealous of Jimmie Walker's popularity winning millions of fans time to sit and watch Good Times. The show would have been dead if JJ would't have been there to save it with his always Kool Aid attitude. Drinking KOOL AID was like his favorite thing on the show. I was 3 when it came out and 8 when it ended. Instead of 1974-1979 it should have went longer like in the 1980's when I was just growing up. | positive |
When I saw this as a child, it answered all of my questions and dispelled any fears or misconceptions that I had. It is easy to watch because it is animated, which makes it unthreatening. It has no moral bias or "preachy" aspects, so nobody should have any objections to it. It is a pleasant film that simply gives the facts of menstruation in a reassuring, "matter-of-fact" way. I hope to show it to my daughter. | positive |
I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.<br /><br />There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks
). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.<br /><br />There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense. | negative |
As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.<br /><br />It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.<br /><br />This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :) | negative |
This is a remake of the anime classic from the 80's, and this one is even better. Sylia, Nene, Linna, and Priss are all back as the Knight Sabers in their hard-suits battling the robotic boomers. The animation is crisp, the characters are well-developed, and the action rocks. Priss is a singer in her regular job, so the series features some wonderful songs as well. There is a fair amount of violence, but most of it is against robots, and there is some fan service, but nothing too racy. The DVDs also have many extras, including commentaries, which really enhance your understanding and enjoyment of the show. A must-have for any anime fan.<br /><br />Also recommended: Burst Angel, Armitage III | positive |
Being quite a fan of Charlie Chaplin following good vibes after seeing first 'The Gold Rush' and then 'City Lights', I was eager to see 'The Great Dictator' as I had been told this was, arguably, his best film. I was also intrigued at the fact it was a talkie; my first one, Chaplin-wise.<br /><br />The start is typical Chaplin and blatant proof that when it comes to sound, Chaplain can cut it whilst not solely relying on music to set mood and to do the talking; it's funny, well timed and the elements of slapstick such as falling off an anti-aircraft gun are well tied in with the jokes. It was good to draw the viewer in with this 'classic Chaplin' opening and at the same time, kick start the narrative of characters getting to know one another. What was also well done was the way in which Hitler is spoofed. Any scene involving Hitler or 'Hynkel' in this film, was funny and even now; makes you think back as you know exactly who he's spoofing and does create an internal reaction of some kind. The way in which English in mixed in with the mock German during the dialogue scenes is further proof of the way Chaplin managed to adapt to the talkie era. My favourite joke was the five minute speech Hynkel gave, only for the English translator to translate it into a mere few words; making you think back to footage of Hitler you may have seen giving a speech at some point in your life and, indeed, laugh at him.<br /><br />Historically, the film got a few things right as well. Hynkel is seen getting his photograph taken with children; something Hitler did for recognition as he manipulated the media but here, Hynkel is seen to yawn and act bored; stabbing at Hitler's underhand technique of winning over the German public through sympathy (Oh, he hugs and kisses children. He must be OK!). The film is also given a fantastic premise of a Jewish civilian reinstalled into the ghetto amongst all the travesties going on but with the catch that he is oblivious. Films such as 'The Pianist' and 'Come and See' are two good examples of Nazi cruelty towards 'inferior' people which nowadays, we can all look back on and shake our heads at whereas back in the late 1930's when this was filmed, the fact he had the cruelty going on and was exploiting it makes it even more an astounding achievement. Chaplin has managed to replace guns and truncheons for tomatoes and saucepans and still pulls it off.<br /><br />What I didn't like about the film, however, was the fact it settled into an actual narrative after the opening. This slowed the film up and this is very noticeable as the foot was taken off the gas somewhat. The film started to hint at stories and sub-stories. These included the barber and the female neighbour falling in love and the supposed destruction of Hynkel's palace whereas none of these were actually developed. The 'giving a woman a shave' and the 'whoever has the coin in their pudding does the deed' gags were hinting at these plot paths but in the end, just materialised into nothing but excuses for drawn out, unfunny gags which was disappointing.<br /><br />During the final straight, The Great Dictator gets a boost from the fact the Italian dictator is introduced who adds some much needed life and excuse for comedy to the film. It works a treat as we see them argue and more underhand tactics are exploited when Hynkel attempts to 'overpower' his Italian counterpart through a series of dirty tricks (although, they are humorously foiled). Despite a few weaknesses in pacing during the middle segment and the fact I felt the message at the end was a little forced down my throat, The Great Dictator holds up for viewing today but that's only because he took the gamble of exploiting things nobody else really knew were there. | positive |
This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away. | negative |
I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are. | positive |
A nicely paced romantic war story that should have got more exposure. The Czech pilot who played piano gives a mellow touch to the story. The flying footage may not have been enough for aviation buffs like myself, but then again, this really isn't an action movie. Though it does not have anything in common with the James Salter novel "The Hunters" that became the movie about Korean War F86 Sabre pilots, Dark Blue World had a similar feel but with more of a romantic element to it. Better in some ways than Battle of Britain in that it doesn't rely on big name actors. Suggest viewing this movie with some Czech beer and some Czech dumplings called kneldniky(sp). | positive |
From the opening drum hit of "We're Gonna Groove" to the last guitar hit of "Whole Lotta Love", this two-DVD set might be one of the best music DVD's ever to hit the shelves since the Beatles Anthology was finally released earlier this year.<br /><br />One of the best things about this DVD is that on Disc 1, a whole concert and many television appearances can be found. For instance, the whole Royal Albert Hall concert is on the DVD, as well as some of the best performances from the band's last concert at Knebworth.<br /><br />In the Royal Albert Hall concert, for instance, the band had a lot of room to improvise. Jimmy Page's guitar solos make "Dazed And Confused" a huge rock power ballad as opposed to the laid-back blues song it was on Led Zeppelin I. <br /><br />Next, on DVD 2, is a promotional video for the Led Zeppelin III hit song "Immigrant Song". One of Zeppelin's hardest rocking songs, the video is about as sketchy as a Pre-MTV video was, but it displays a lot of guitar power by Jimmy Page, as it was taken from a live performance. After the video ends, we are treated, in transition, with a short picture of fans filling the seats at Madison Square Garden. The following are performances that were supposed to be part of "The Song Remains The Same", but did not make the cut. Excellent riffs like those in the songs "Black Dog" and "The Ocean" were both present.<br /><br />After the Madison Performances, we are treated with Earl's Court. Most of the Led Zeppelin IV material was played here, like the most popular song that Zeppelin ever recorded, "Stairway to Heaven". It is brilliant as always, even more so than the version on IV.<br /><br />Finally, to end the 5+ hours of live material, is Led Zeppelin's final concert in Knebworth in August of 1979. As the viewer watches this, they have to admit that Robert Plant's voice is getting throatier and deeper from all of the screaming he has done in the past, and it is evident here. On songs like "Kashmir" and "In The Evening", Plant does not have his vocal boost of old, yet, on "Whole Lotta Love", it returns for one more song.<br /><br />Overall, one of the best musical DVD's ever released, only next to the great "Beatles Anthology" boxed set that was released earlier in 2003. The sound, both in 5.1 DTS and 5.1 Dolby Digital, just like the Beatles DVD, gives you a feeling of being on-stage with the performers, standing right next to them, as you would feel on the Beatles DVD when they are jamming in the studio. Even though The Beatles and Led Zeppelin are different bands, though, they each received different DVD's. Even though this set comes on only two discs compared to the five disc Beatles Set, it still feels very filling to the viewer after they have gone through all of that content. It is also a pleasure to watch again and again, not only because of the sound quality, but because of the sheer energy on stage when Robert Plant begins to sing.<br /><br />A brilliant effort from Atlantic. | positive |
This was a great movie. It had one "sot-so-nice" outburst. Plus there were some very intense (drama) scenes which might make it inappropriate for younger viewers, under 6.<br /><br />For a under the radar film, the acting was quite enjoyable, and touched down in our family room for a near perfect landing. It held the attention of our whole family and we were kind of sorry to see it end.<br /><br />This movie had elements of spy kids with young people saving the day, but was given a somewhat more believable scenario. The dream scenes were a distraction at first, but did a great deal to establish the plot. The pranks and hi-jinx were also quite amusing.<br /><br />We hope you like as much as we did. | positive |
"It all depends on how you look at it we are either halfway to heaven or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly "crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals, half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films in the past in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu for a picnic.<br /><br />The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goerthe most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the filmif you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.<br /><br />What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.<br /><br />At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.<br /><br />At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spiritand therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.<br /><br />At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.<br /><br />The final layer is the social commentary"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.<br /><br />To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).<br /><br />The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences. | positive |
This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10. | negative |
I have passed several times on watching this since I figured it was some dumb, sappy, dated romantic comedy. Well, it is a romantic comedy, and maybe a little dated. However, it is not overly sentimental, touching as it does on themes of office politics, adultery, and loneliness. You think you know exactly where things are headed, but there is an element of unpredictability that keeps your interest, and not everything turns out quite as you had expected. But, there is enough wit and charm to touch the most inveterate cynic. If you meet someone who doesn't like this movie, seriously consider how well you want to know them. | positive |
I was very disappointed in this film. The director has shown some talent in his other endeavors, but this just seemed to be filler. There may have been a deep meaning behind it, but it seems to me to be nothing but a director who has access to some toys.<br /><br />I would highly recommend his other works to people, but certainly not this one. As I watched it, I kept on thinking it would pick up after an initial slow period, but it never did. At the end of the movie I was neither entertained nor moved nor thought of things in a new way. I could only say to myself, "What was that?"<br /><br />There were a few really striking parts of the film, but not enough to warrant sitting through it again. | negative |
THE RINGMASTER stars Jerry Springer as a TV talkshow host called Jerry , but it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW , his guests are trailer trash , but not the trailer trash you get on THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW, they attack one another , but not like on.....What is the point of making a movie about THE JERRY SPRINGER show and pretending it`s not THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW ? And on top of that this is a very boring film | negative |
Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh. | negative |
This is a stupid movie. When I saw it in a movie theater more than half the audience left before it was half over. I stayed to the bitter end. To show fortitude? I caught it again on television and it was much funnier. Still by no means a classic, or even consistently hilarious but the family kinda grew on me. I love Jessica Lundy anyway. If you've nothing better to do and it's free on t.v. you could do worse. | negative |
Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1 | negative |
This tough-to-see little picture played at the Mods & Rockers 2007 festival. It is a wonderful and loving look at Harry Nilsson, using many famous faces who sit for interviews, rarely seen TV performances and behind-the-scenes footage of Nilsson at work. There's even a few shots from "Son Of Dracula". This movie is the final and fitting tribute to one of the finest voices, the most clever songwriter and the funniest man in popular music. It's a crime that this man's name is not as well known as some of the songs he wrote and/or performed. His friends tell incredibly funny stories about this talented hulk with a subconscious wish for self-destruction. As a bonus, you even get Eric Idle performing the song with wrote for Nilsson's final album during the closing credits. It's funny, it's sad. It's not in general release. If this picture plays anywhere near where you live, see it! | positive |
Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.<br /><br />She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.<br /><br />she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.<br /><br />Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.<br /><br />Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937. | positive |
No Strings Attached features Carlos Mencia doing stand-up that makes us both laugh and think. Not only does he poke fun at racial issues (like many haters claim), but he also talks about the best way to get illegal immigrants out of the country...what women mean when they say they want to be treated equally...why Americans are crazier than Arab terrorists...why nobody needs to pray for the pope - and what he hopes he's doing in heaven...a theory of how Easter (aka Big Ups to Jesus Day) traditions got started...his viewing of the movie Passion of the Christ - and his sub-sequential argument with a woman about whether or not he's affected by Jesus...how society should treat the physically handicapped...and even if you have the right to tell a joke or not.<br /><br />Also, he never stops reminding us that each of us has a voice. So we should use it to speak the truth, say what we think, and not be afraid if others are offended.<br /><br />Carlos is the bomb. | positive |
This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.! | negative |
Wow. I felt like I needed to shower off after watching this one, but maybe there were other reasons that I will leave to your imagination. I felt used and abused after wacking, I mean watching this film. Hairy chests, thick mustaches, and well, hairy everything describes this porn/horror movie, but hey, it was 1981, you can't call it "porn" in the 70s and 80s without the hair.<br /><br />As a horror flick, this bites. But as a piece of exploitation/porn from Italy's rich cinematic history- it definitely has a place in my library. The copy I have is in Italian with English subtitles. I wish it had the really poorly dubbed English, I think it would have added to the sleaziness factor that already existed. The only white guy who gets laid in the movie is "Mark Shannon"- he is the moustache wearing, hairy chested piece of machismo who really does try and give a performance every time he "steps up to bat". This was at the end of an era where porn producers were actually trying to make something artistic. Nothing like panning the camera from a tropical backdrop to a hairy man having "doggie-style" sex with a woman. I can't help but laugh.<br /><br />This is one of those movies that I pray my future wife and kids never find. | negative |
Well how can I categorise Farscape without resorting to gushing superlatives? Ok, here goes! The scripts are fantastic, with each episode offering so much entertainment, drama, humour and sheer watchability. The casting is perfect especially that of Zhaan (the blue lady) played by Virginia Hey, each character has a depth that just isn't there on the Star Trek series.<br /><br />I think having an Australian spin on the show makes this for me, Australia has been knocking out quality films for years and Farscape is no exception.<br /><br />I have only seen the first four episodes in UK order and they have a quality that makes each 45 minute show (in the UK) stand out more like a film than a weekly TV series.<br /><br />The episode that really does it for me is 'I, ET' which turns the alien concept around where Moya (a living ship, even the spacecraft has a great character) is forced to land on a planet that has yet to make 'First contact' and is surprisingly earth like and Crichton meets a radio telescope operator and *he* is the 'little green man' to them. Gripping stuff.<br /><br />In short the effects are great, the scripts are top quality and the main characters (not one of them really given any more importance than any other) are interesting, not always 'good' and well just excellent.<br /><br />Roll on the second season! | positive |
In conception a splendid film, investigating the tensions that occur in family life in the idyllic setting of Galiano Island off the coast of British Columbia, _The Lotus Eaters_ is marred by the fact that it has been packaged as a made-for-TV movie, diminishing itself throughout by the addition of chirpy music over potentially powerful scenes, as if to get ready for the interruption of commercials. A pity, really. | positive |
I'm not from USA I'm from central Europe and i think the show is amazingly good. It can be easily compared with married with..children. My title says that it isn't show for conservative public. I mean i'm not so liberal but it may be slight difference between European conservatism and us cons. Anyway, show is starting to be very popular in our area and it's very bad that it contains only two seasons. Last episode opens many continuous and funny moments. Anyway I and many peoples would be glad if that would continue playing. The last thing i'm thrilled about this is some moral education very nice packed into humorous scenes. I mean i have seen many comedies that has over two and even more minutes of very sad in tragic scenes that absolutely don't fit into comedy. War doesn't contain something like that and is made for laughing. It's like The Simpsons and married whose also don't have any sad or even unfunny moments. I'm apologizing for my awful knowledge of English but I still hope that You will understand what I meant. | positive |
I wish "that '70s show" would come back on television. It was the greatest show ever!!! They should make episodes between the other episodes but of course that would be confusing. But I wish it would come back and make more episodes. Please come back... The show was absolutely hilarious. You couldn't laugh without seeing an episode. There is a really funny part in every episode and plus the show was so much better when Hyde and Jackie were going out with each other. Those were the best episodes. "That '70s show is the best".... It will be and always will be the best show ever. It was really sad when the show ended. They should make new episodes. | positive |
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.<br /><br />Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.<br /><br />The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.<br /><br />But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.<br /><br />Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance. | negative |
This movie is great fun to watch if you love films of the organized crime variety. Those looking for a crime film starring a charismatic lead with dreams of taking over in a bad way may be slightly disappointed with the way this film strides.<br /><br />It is a fun romp through a criminal underworld however and if you aren't familiar with Hong Kong films, then you may be pleasantly surprised by this one. I was somewhat disappointed by some of the choices made story-wise but overall a good crime film. Some things did not make sense but that seems to be the norm with films of the East. <br /><br />People just randomly do things regardless of how their personalities were set up prior. It's a slightly annoying pattern that permeates even in this film. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.