review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer died<br /><br />The movie is good in parts but overall isn't great<br /><br />The scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handled<br /><br />The film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lost<br /><br />Milan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGE<br /><br />Music is good but too many songs<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay | negative |
I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.<br /><br />I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:<br /><br />1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...<br /><br />I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...<br /><br />* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.<br /><br />That's about it... | negative |
This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac. | negative |
These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.<br /><br />If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make "10 lines if text" as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did. | positive |
If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.<br /><br />The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something. | negative |
Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all. | negative |
I watched "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.<br /><br />It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.<br /><br />This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since. | negative |
I think is a great and a VERY funny movie. The story is so funny. The daughter Nicole brings her father Andre, in some very embarrassing situations In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the daughter pretends that her father is her lover.You just have to see!! Heigl is lovely as Nicole, perhaps too lovely; I'm not sure why she'd need to lie to hook anyone? Gerard Depardieu Acts very great in this comedy film, he is so fun to watch. If you like comedy and romantic film you just have to see this!!! I think you can see this film many time, and you will still have a good laugh.<br /><br />In an effort to impress the boy of her dreams, the girl pretends that her father is her lover. | positive |
The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays "Muka Laka Miki" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie. <br /><br />She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.<br /><br />Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.<br /><br />So don't say I didn't warn you... | negative |
Have you seen The Graduate? It was hailed as the movie of its generation. But A River Runs Through It is the story about all generations. Long before Dustin Hoffman's character got all wrapped up in the traps of modern suburbia, Norman Maclean and his brother Paul were facing the same crushing pressures of growing up as they tried to find their place in the world. But how could a place like post WW1 Montana be a showcase for the American family, at a time when the Wild West still was not completely gone? Just what has Maclean tapped into that strikes so deeply at who we all are and what we have to go through to find ourselves? As the movie opens, Norman is an old man, flyfishing beside a rushing river, trying to understand the course his own life has taken. The movie is literally a journey up through his own stream of consciousness, against time's current and back to when he was a boy. He and his younger brother Paul were the sons of a Presbyterian minister and devoted mother. The parents fit snugly into their roles. Mom takes care of house and home. Dad does the work of the Lord. The boys ponder what they will be when they grow up. Norm has it narrowed down to a boxer or a minister like his dad. Given the choice, little Paul would be the boxer, since he's told his first choice of pro flyfisherman doesn't even exist. The boys grow up and get into trouble with their pranks, fight to see who is tougher and do the things brothers do, all the while attending church and taking part in all other spiritual matters like flyfishing. They are at similar points in their lives before college. But when Norm returns from his six years at Dartmouth, things are very different. Paul is at the top of his game. Master flyfisherman. Grad of a nearby college and newspaper reporter who knows every cop on the beat and every judge on the bench. Norman is stunningly well educated for his day but has little idea what to do with his life, even as his father grills him about what he intends to do. You're left feeling that at least to Pops, God will call you to your life's work. But you have to stay open and ready to receive it -- all your life. Father has always taken his boys to reflect by the side of the river and contemplate God's eternal words. "Listen," their father urges. It's both Zen and Quakerly. Pretty radical for a stoic clergyman. But with all the beauty and contemplation, and even though the Macleans are truly a God-fearing, scripture-heeding household, how is it that Rev. Maclean's family is unraveling? Paul is true perfection as he fishes the river, but he's feeling the pull of gambling and boozing, while his family doesn't know how to keep him from winding up where he seems to be headed. Mom, Dad and Brother all seem to have the same quiet desperation of not knowing what they should be doing and why they can't seem to help. Pauly just waves it all off with a grin and his irresistible charm. But the junior brother is losing his grip. Norman starts getting his life on track, finding love and career, but Paul continues to slide. The family that loves him watches helplessly. Mother, Father, Brother flounder in their own ways trying to help, but none very effectively. How can a family that loves each other so much be so ill-equipped to handle this? How can someone be so artful and full of grace when out in God's nature, yet be somehow unfit or unwilling to fit into the constructs of society that God's peoples have made for themselves? These are all questions Norman will ponder his entire life. The eternal words beneath the smooth stones of the river forever haunt him, yet keep their secrets. The movie is beautiful to watch. This is certainly God's country, and filming it won an Oscar. Director Robert Redford plays with the story from the book and teases the narration a bit to follow the emotional pattern he's presenting, and it works well. But do go back and read the book, too. You'll see Norman made connections with his old man even deeper than the movie can suggest -- and you'll see the places where the storyteller's very words gurgle and sing right off the page with an exuberance of a river running through it, leading into the unknown. | positive |
#3 in young John Travolta's trilogy of blockbusters. He dances to disco, rock 'n' roll and country. He heads to Houston to find work and love. Gilley's is the hot spot, and it is the time of the mechanical bull. Not to be outdone, I rode the bull at a club in Nashville. I recently saw this nearly forgotten film on television and remembered how good it was and how good a year 1980 was. I wore a black cowboy hat that year just like Travolta. Debra Winger was in her prime. She looks stunning in her red top. There is plenty of charisma. Bud and Sissy seem the ideal couple even if they are trailer trash. They split up just because it feels so good getting back together. Urban Cowboy has an amazing soundtrack. We get to hear Lyin' Eyes by The Eagles and Lookin' For Love by Johnny Lee. | positive |
This was the film that first indicated to me what a great actor Martin Sheen really is. He modestly claims that Charlie is a better actor, Charlie can't hold a candle to him.<br /><br />I found it suspenseful and thoroughly enjoyed the intertwining of the love story with the main plot (and I usually HATE love stories). There's a great plot twist at the end that struck me as being fully credible, particularly in the early 80's time period, and probably now also.<br /><br />The final scene had me on the edge of my seat. This film roundly illustrates that treachery is often doled out by those we trust, while declared enemies have more in common than they suspect, and finally, that human compassion can be found where we least expect it.<br /><br />irenerose | positive |
This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other. | negative |
Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me. | negative |
Quick and simple, I love this movie.<br /><br />As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love "Goodfellas.") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?<br /><br />It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to "Pulp Fiction", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!<br /><br />Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!! | positive |
A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.<br /><br />SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.<br /><br />This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality. | negative |
Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did. | negative |
So, you wanna be a rock star? See this movie. You don't like rock, you say? Or you're REALLY into heavy metal? Then put on your favorite album and dream yourself away, this movie has nothing to offer. Rarely have I ever seen a movie being able to portrait the dream of being in a rock band as good as this. I had long hair during the late 1980's and early nineties, and I have played guitar for the last 15 years or so. Did I like Rock Star? Oh yes. The music is good, not great, the actors are good, and believable, even Jennifer Aniston plays her part to perfection. And Mark Wahlberg is perfect as the wannabe rock singer. So you know what you're going to get. A movie about dreams coming true, being stepped on, and finally figuring out what life is really about. It's a good solid seven out of ten, no more, no less. | positive |
The "saucy" misadventures of four au pairs who arrive in London on the same day in the early 1970s. There's a Swedish girl, a Danish, a German and a Chinese. The story contrives to get the clothes off all of them, involve them in some Carry On-type humour and couple them with various misfits from the British film and TV culture of the time, including Man About the House star Richard O'Sullivan, future Coronation Street rogue Johnny Briggs and horror film stalwart Ferdy Mayne (playing a sheik). There's a pretty risqué amount of female nudity on display, for those who like that kind of thing (but obviously nothing hardcore).<br /><br />Most of the film is pretty thin and inconsequential; the girls are stereotypes, and German Anita especially suffers from some kind of infantalising disorder - she's a moron obsessed with colour TV who acts like a kind of uninhibited child & dresses to deliberately show her private parts; in another more serious film, she would be a psychiatric case. The most interesting section of the film involves the Swedish girl being taken to a club in London where some dodgy types are still trying to swing, being seduced by a middle-aged rocker, losing her virginity and realising that the scene is not for her. These sequences have some energy in them and point to a more intriguing film than we've ended up with, in which promiscuity and the dregs of the music business and upper classes live soulless and seedy lives (there's a fine turn by John Standing as an impotent public school roué). The strangest of the stories has the Chinese girl (future cannibal film veteran Me Me Lay) getting off with her childish piano prodigy employer, falling mutually in love with and then leaving in the middle of the night for no good reason at all, except some orientalist notion that "Chinese birds are inscrutable, ain't they?!" The film is pretty demeaning to its women characters and there's a smattering of homophobia in the dialogue and one of the characterisations. The end is striking, as Mayne's sheik for no earthly reason (except they have to end the film somehow) whisks all of the girls away to his Arab kingdom for what looks to all the world like a future in the white slave trade, which they are all delighted about.<br /><br />Stuff and nonsense for the most part then, but directed with a fair amount of skill by veteran Val Guest, which puts it as a piece of film-making a notch above most of the 70s Brit sexploitation flicks. | negative |
i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.) | negative |
The main premise for this movie is every woman's fantasy: a vagina that kills and eats men. Well at least it is a fantasy for every woman who has ever had a fight against a man. What's that, 99.9999% of women? But don't worry it's not a gory kind of eating of men. It's more like a comical slurping them in, like a drain plug. There's no blood or parts left behind. So for blood, guts & gore fans, forget about this film, not much gore here.<br /><br />The two main characters of the film are somewhat unrealistic. Helen is a good girl who becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Dennis is a nice guy who stalks Helen.<br /><br />The story is already a little silly at this point, but then they throw in two more equally silly sub-stories that just send this movie into the bad B-movie territory. The first new sub-story is about Dennis finding new love with a pair of conjoined twins; and then eventually murdering one of them, and becoming a fugitive bank-robber. The second new sub-story is about Helen finding new love with a nice policeman who rescued her from a prostitution-related bad date, and decided he wanted to marry her. Dennis and Helen eventually meet up again at the end of movie in totally unbelievable circumstances, and magically Helen's murderous vagina is cured! | negative |
This film broke a lot of ground and receives on the whole a lot less credit than it's due. It touches on a topic that is ever-present in our daily lives, but which is seen as a phenomenon so common that it does not merit discussion. This phenomenon is that of caregivers (be they doctors or, as in "Broken Promise", a senior social worker) who abuse their position in order to harm those they have been charged to protect.<br /><br />In Broken Promise, Patty Clawson and her family are abandoned by their parents; but are soon picked up by local law enforcement. Faced with the certain prospect of foster care, Patty begs a young social worker to keep her and her brothers and sisters together. This social worker approaches a senior member of another department, but his request is denied.<br /><br />The children are parcelled off to seperate homes, thereby following the prevailing opinions of the day and ensuring a "clean break." But it is this event, the "broken promise" which gives the film it's name, which causes the dramatic tension that is to continue throughout the film. Angered by the Young Social Worker's apparent betrayal, Patty Clawson runs away from the foster home she has been sent to.<br /><br />Faced with the daunting task of finding her family in a climate where the ideal is seen to be a complete separation from the past; she does the only the thing she can to ascertain their whereabouts and breaks into the Senior Social Worker's office to steal the casefile.<br /><br />Apprehended soon after she finds she has made a dangerous enemy. Furious at the embarrassment this little girl has caused him and his department, the Senior Social Worker decides to use his power and authority to destroy her; something that legally he is quite capable of doing.<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />This topic, of the harm of caregivers to clients, is relatively taboo. It certainly has been touched on very little in films as few directors wish to tread the path that would imply that caregivers cause harm.<br /><br />I think that this film plays a very important role in making the public more aware of this sort of thing. The case portrayed is not only plausible, but has probably happened many times before to many other children all over the world. This film is critical to changing public opinion in order to get rid of the laws that protect harmful people like the Senior Social Worker in "Broken Promise".<br /><br />I strongly recommend Broken Promise. It is especially appropriate viewing for trainee social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors, and other caregiving professions. It is a lesson in avoidance that should be taken to heart.<br /><br />-----------<br /><br />In terms of the acting in "Broken Promise." Melissa Michaelsen plays a superb part as Patty Clawson. Especially in films such as this believability is critical. If the viewer did not identify with the character of Patty, the whole message of the film would be in jeopardy. It's unfortunate that Melissa doesn't still act in films today, as her performance in "Broken Promise" shows her to have had exceptional talent. | positive |
I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face | negative |
I found this to be a so-so romance/drama that has a nice ending and a generally nice feel to it. It's not a Hallmark Hall Of Fame-type family film with sleeping-before-marriage considered "normal" behavior but considering it stars Jane Fonda and Robert De Niro, I would have expected a lot rougher movie, at least language-wise. <br /><br />The most memorable part of the film is the portrayal of how difficult it must be to learn how to read and write when you are already an adult. That's the big theme of the movie and it involves some touching scenes but, to be honest, the film isn't that memorable.<br /><br />It's still a fairly mild, nice tale that I would be happy to recommend. | positive |
Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular. <br /><br />Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing. <br /><br />As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"! <br /><br />3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe | negative |
I searched for this movie for years, apparently it ain't available here in the States so bought me a copy off Ebay.<br /><br />Four young hunters and three of their girlfriends venture into the woods searching for a bear that apparently has killed several campers. What they find is an ex-Vietnam vet gone crazy (he kills some of his victims using a glove with long metal finger nails a la Freddy Krueger). As soon as the night falls, one of the girls goes for a walk after a brief argument with her boyfriend, she gets killed. After one of the group finds her body, they all hide in their tents waiting for daylight. Once the sun comes up, all of them try and make it out, but fall victim one by one.<br /><br />Seven bodies, not a lot of gore, but a couple of good murders, especially the girls'deaths. The guys get killed in somewhat bloodless ways (blown up in car, shot to death, knife through head). <br /><br />Overall, INFERNAL TRAP is a nice slasher film from the late 80's. Nothing new, just well acted, fast paced and some pretty ladies. 10 out of 10. | positive |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.<br /><br />I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.<br /><br />Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) <br /><br />This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. * | negative |
Just before dawn is an underrated horror film from the early eighties. I haven't seen it in years but it had a great impact when I watched it, quite original for its day, the only problem is that it has not been released on video or dvd for years. If you like horror I urge you to check this little gem out!! | positive |
Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day. | negative |
I really enjoyed this movie. Most of the reviews have been bad, but most critics think a movie should be like an idea drama. This movie has a little bit of drama, but the rest is just clean fun and very entertaining. Forget about Julia Roberts being a Pretty Woman, Emma Roberts is a beautiful young lady and there is more to her than just that. Emma was so much fun to watch in the role of Nancy Drew. It is good to see a new face. I believe she will go far.<br /><br />Nancy Drew may not be based upon the books, but the story is still good. There is also a good blend of other character actors and supporting actors like Pat Carroll, Barry Bostwick, Rachel Leigh Cook and Chris Kattan - not credited. I'm surprised Disney did not release this movie. Some people may not like this movie because it does not contain sex, violence, and cursing. This is a good family film which is rare in this day in time. So take your family, see this movie and judge for your self how good it is. I can't wait for the sequel. | positive |
Laputa: castle in the sky is the bomb. The message is as strong as his newer works and more pure, fantastic and flying pirates how could it be any better! The art is totally amazing and the soundtrack, which is reused many times after this, (im not sure if this was the first time i heard it) and evokes in me the most emotional sentimental response of any movie soundtrack. Sheeta, the female lead in this movie is totally awesome and the boy, Pazu is also a great role-model--he lives on his own! The plot is classic Miyazaki. I won't give it away, but the end is really great. I rank this as one of Miyazaki's three best with Nausicaa and Spirited Away. Also you may want to check out Howl's Moving Castle when it comes out (sometime next year i hope) If you like Miyazaki check this one out as it readily available in the USA. Enjoy, Piper A | positive |
After I got done watching this movie I was so upset that I had wasted 2 hours of my life. That's 2 hours I'll never get back. Ugh. When you start this you might think "Wow this is really good!" But rest assured that first impressions mean NOTHING. I was so excited about this movie until the dumbest ending I have ever seen. This movie is simply pathetic. The acting is bland, the story line is anything but original and there's nothing especially unique about this except that it's the WORST MOVIE EVER!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! WARNING!! DUMBEST MOVIE EVER YOU WILL BE SORRY IF YOU WASTE 2 HOURS OF YOUR LIFE ON THIS!!! 1/10 | negative |
It is a wonderful film about people. Strange people. The characters in the movie all have a very tragic past, so they all have their problems. Their problems evolve in a way that makes the plot of the movie very absurd; but that does not make the movie worse, only better, for it is shot in a kind of fantasy-like way, so nothing is real. This review might sound a little weird, but then again, the movie is not quite normal... It is also a hilarious movie at many times. If you have not seen it, see it. Enjoy! | positive |
It is one of the better Indian movies I have seen lately, instead of crappy song and dance or slum dog movies. All the actors have showed the right emotions at the right intensity with right timing. It is the hallmark of a good movie, that it make the viewer go back and research the subject, which exactly what I did checking on Harilal. I always enjoy Akshay Khanna's subtle style of acting and interestingly he had rather a complicated relationship with his own father Vinod Khanna, albeit not as dramatic as Gandhis and wonder how it helped him essay this character. I was impressed by the direction and 2 thumbs up for Anil Kapoor for producing such a classy movie. | positive |
Although it's most certainly politically incorrect to be entertained by a drunk, there's such a charm to Dudley Moore's portrayal of lovable lush, Arthur Bach one can't help but feel for this unique and wonderful character. How can you not be entertained by that infectious laugh and giggle and utter silliness. Although I'm not really a Liza Minnelli fan, she was really excellent as Linda Marolla and I couldn't picture anyone else in that role. Sir John Gielgud was the heart of the film and deserved his Oscar. The rest of the cast also excellent and that great tune "Arthur's Theme", wow. Truly this was one of the Best Comedies of the 1980s. Great films get better with each viewing and that is the case with "Arthur." | positive |
I want to start by stating I am a republican, even though I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done in office. And I love the daily show and Colbert report. They have to be two of my favorite shows on TV. I enjoy the bush jokes on Conan, Letterman, Leno, because I admit that W is not the smartest guy to ever walk the earth(I do believe he's not the dumbest either.) But it comes to a point when enough is enough and it's not really that funny anymore. I see where it can be funny and it is(hey he's making fun of our authority figure he's hilarious.). Comedy central though is just trying to hard to poke fun at him. I mean maybe one special episode, but an entire series is just dumb. It seems CC is just saying the same bush jokes that we've heard WAY to many times. I really cannot see this show going past 1 season. | negative |
Lost is an extremely well made TV series about some people that are lost on an island. there's so many twists and turns that you can't really decide who your favourite character is, one minute its him then he does something so he's coolest then shes about to do something so shes the coolest then suspense builds up and just as you are about to burst the episode ends and your like noooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!so you have to wait a whole week too see the next episode but it is worth the wait. Suspense, action, romance, humour its got it all apart from the topless girls but thats good as it means that you can actually concentrate on the story more and story is what this is all about. so if you like a good story and like suspense this is a good one however 24 i think is probably better.(i have a review on that too that you could check it out.) I would give lost a good 8 out of 10 mainly because its so unpredictable, you never know what will happen next. | positive |
After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal. <br /><br />There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.<br /><br />My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy. <br /><br />I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision. <br /><br />Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution. | negative |
Murder Over New York is one of the better Chan mysteries and I've just seen this for the first time.<br /><br />In this one, Charlie Chan is visiting New York to attend a police convention. At the same time, people who are involved with aircraft plants are being murdered and he decides to help with the investigation, along with his Number 2 son. These murders turn out to be the results of sabotage at the aircraft plants and Chan helps to identify the murderer...<br /><br />Charlie Chan is played well by Sidney Toler and the rest of the cast includes Sen Yung as his Number 2 son and Marjorie Weaver.<br /><br />I rather liked this mystery and is worth having if you like this sort of thing.<br /><br />Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5. | positive |
This movie is very good in term of acting and plot. The events and the setting (i.e. how Chris gets the job, Chris's work environment, the face-to-face between the two sides, etc) thereof, on the other hand, are found to be less than realistic. | positive |
To put it simply, I am not fond of westerns. And having never sat through one from beginning to end, I decided to watch "My Darling Clementine" and see it all the way through, no matter how painful it was for me. At first it was excruciating as expected. I found the acting to be laughable, the scenery (your standard dessert, horses and cowboys) boring and the music and its timing teetering on the edge of painful. However, after mentally pep talking myself to struggle on, after the first 20 minutes it began to be quite a bit easier for me to endure. Focusing in on the cinematography, and how John Ford managed to make even the dullest situations (dull according to me that is) look quite stunning at times, made it a lot more interesting. <br /><br />In conclusion, I can't go so far as to say that I enjoyed the movie by the end of it. However it was made well enough for me to sit all the way through to the very end, and that in itself impresses me. | negative |
Somewhere, out there, there must be a list of the all time worst gay films every made. One's that have overlong camera shots of the stars sitting and staring pensively into space, or one's where they focus unbearably long on kitty kats eating spaghetti. This motion sickness picture is a story of a boy and a boy and they live and love and swim and get stuck in grottos and one of them has a depressed mother and another has no mother and they talk and walk and swim and have sex and get drunk and then break up and someone goes to the hospital for eight days and then gets out and there is a lot of fast forward and rewind and there are long pensive shots of one of them looking into space or just sitting and doing nothing. I think it's some sort of gimmicky film making technique or maybe it's that the film is so bad they have to fill it up with long, wasted shots because otherwise if they had to rely on plot or story the film would be about 14 minutes. Don't get me wrong, this is about the 30th gay film I"ve watched in the past 6 months and some of them (most of them) have been very formulmatic, predictable and boring but this is one is really a terrible waste of time. The best one so far was "Beautiful Thing". So, I watched this and after the very first opening shot which lingered and lingered I thought "Oh, no, its going to be creative sinny mah" But I gave it a chance and watched it and then when it ended I tossed the DVD in the trash. Sorry I didn't like it and if you did, sorry if I offend. | negative |
Eskimo is a serious movie about the cultural chasm between an indigenous population and the encroaching white man. Although filmed in a documentary style seemingly with non-professionals, Eskimo is a skilled production that contains a believable story the audience will want to see through to the final shot.<br /><br />The native Eskimo simply has different beliefs and behaviors about women and life than do the whalers that darken his landscape. When an Eskimo man loses his mate, it is natural that other men share their women with their friend. It is also usual for their women to want to take the place of the missing spouse. All of this seems natural in the context of the desolate foreboding Arctic setting. The trusting Eskimo falls prey to unscrupulous white whalers (with heavy European accents) that do not view these natives as their equals. Deceit, drunken orgies, rape, and death occur after the Eskimo men depart for work on the icy cold seas. Eventually the lead Eskimo (Mala) realizes that he has been duped and he takes his revenge. The audience would have cheered in the 1930's theaters.<br /><br />Enter the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the moral dilemma of whether to bring back Mala for trial. The Mounties are played as feeling policemen that know this is not a cut and dry case. Will the Mounties get their man? Is it fair to hold Mala to a code of behavior outside of his traditional society? Is there a way out that does not punish Mala? Is it inevitable that the white man's law must prevail? Is there no hope for innocence?<br /><br />This is not a great movie, but one that you will enjoy for the depth of the issue addressed in a very different setting. I suspect that the filming of the sequences with animals was done before today's disclaimer that none were injured in the making of the film -- so beware of the raw nature sequences. Highly recommended. | positive |
PERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote "1" because the actress is beautiful ... ;) | negative |
I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream "SHUT UP ALREADY!!!" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, "Huh?" | negative |
A sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces in name only, The Angels Wash Their Faces suffers somewhat from the usual shenanigans of the Dead End Kids. As a matter of fact, with the presence of the Dead End Kids and Ann Sheridan this should have been treated as an actual sequel to Angels With Dirty Faces, at least for continuity's sake.<br /><br />Speaking of Ann Sheridan, she is the one true shining light of this movie. To paraphrase a cliché, Ann Sheridan could read from a phone book for two hours and I would buy the DVD!<br /><br />Another virtue of this movie is the chemistry between Ann Sheridan and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately , this aspect of the film is kept too far in the background. For a better example of the Sheridan-Reagan duo I would recommend Juke Girl or Kings Row. | positive |
Without a shadow of a doubt this is and probably will always be the worst film i have ever had the missfortune to see my whole life. Take 5 wooden actors who got thrown out of acting school because they were so wooden someone sat on them thinking they were a bench.<br /><br />Then add a cheap camcorder. You know the old VHS types that cost £20 on ebay. Add a terrible story line with no effects and yes you have this film. What a shocker it was. They couldn't even save it by having a fit girl in it. She was fat and ugly and was the worst of all. I actually watched it all as i could not believe this crap ever got funded.<br /><br />MISS AT ALL COSTS | negative |
- A group of bandits rob a train of the gold shipment it is carrying. In their escape, the bandits split up. The one thief who knows where the gold is hidden is killed before he is able to talk. Three men have a different part of the "clue" that will lead to the gold. Can the banker, the bandit, and the bounty hunter work together to locate the missing loot? Or, will they kill each other first? - The plot is an obvious take-off of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Various scenes in the movie are also lifted from other films by Leone, Corbucci, and more. But, to me, it's done in a way that doesn't show disrespect to the original work. Instead, Any Gun Can Play lovingly parodies some of the biggest films in Spaghetti Western history. The opening scene of three men riding into town and the final face-off between the three main stars are a wonderful homage to the SWs that came before.<br /><br />- Castellari adds a lot of nice touches of his own - the reflection in the spilled wine, the Stranger's entrance with the vivid red background, and the playful way the gold is discovered in the end. Although highly unbelievable, many of the fight scenes are well staged and directed. Two fight scenes in particular (the market fight and the bath house fight) are very nicely done. He is also unafraid to try different things with his camera. Tight close-ups, overhead shots, and shots around corners are all common in Any Gun Can Play.<br /><br />- Another plus is the cast that Castellari had to work with. George Hilton is always good in these movies. Gilbert Roland is literally playing Gilbert Roland. And SW newcomer Edd Byrnes holds his own with the two SW veterans. The supporting cast features, among others, SW regular Gerard Herter.<br /><br />- Any Gun Can Play should not be taken too seriously. Nice touches of humor can be found throughout the movie. If this is possible with an SW, it's more of a "feel good" movie - very reminiscent of some of the Terence Hill / Bud Spencer films. | positive |
It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it. | positive |
Old movie buffs will know why I'd call this one "The Man in the Grey Flannel Robe." Most Bible-based movies are basically schlock- what might call forth smiles and giggles here is how Peck, tries to raise consciousness on a variety of psychological and social issues with the spear carrying Neanderthals all about him. As a Great Romance, it falls flat as unleavened bread. But there is something gripping about this movie. Of all the big Hollywood Bible pictures it most strikingly conveys the ambivalent attitude of the Average American towards belief in the Biblical God. Billy Sunday's thesis is duking it out with H.L. Mencken's antithesis all through the script. Who gets the better of it in the Heavenly Chorus-backed synthesis depends on your point of view. Other than that, D & B boasts a good performances by Peck ( especially in the closing repentance scene) and by Jayne Meadows as his bitter first wife Michol, vivid, moody atmosphere (good idea to set most action at dawn or night), and the rousing rendition of the Twenty-Third Psalm at the end. | positive |
The only reason this movie is not given a 1 (awful) vote is that the acting of both Ida Lupino and Robert Ryan is superb. Ida Lupino who is lovely, as usual, becomes increasingly distraught as she tries various means to rid herself of a madman. Robert Ryan is terrifying as the menacing stranger whose character, guided only by his disturbed mind, changes from one minute to the next. Seemingly simple and docile, suddenly he becomes clever and threatening. Ms. Lupino's character was in more danger from that house she lived in and her own stupidity than by anyone who came along. She could not manage to get out of her of her own house: windows didn't open, both front and back doors locked and unlocked from the inside with a key. You could not have designed a worse fire-trap if you tried. She did not take the precaution of having even one extra key. Nor could she figure out how to summon help from nearby neighbors or get out of her own basement while she was locked in and out of sight of her captor. I don't know what war her husband was killed in, but if it was World War II, the furnishings in her house, the styles of the clothes, especially the children and the telephone company repairman's car are clearly anachronistic. I recommend watching this movie just to see what oddities you can find. | negative |
A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..<br /><br />This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.<br /><br />To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next.. | negative |
I'm lucky enough to have a good quality copy of my VHS on DVD so I can now watch this over and over again. The characters are so well played I can't find fault with any aspect of the casting. OK, so there are a few differences from the book, but the old cliché of love conquering all is so powerfully portrayed that it makes no difference. The reality of living in the rural countryside of early 19th century England is beautifully contrasted by the changing seasons, from biting winter to glorious summer days and this is mirrored in the different characters, from Prue's bullying father to Kester's all encompassing love. A story that changed my life. | positive |
Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is! | negative |
The story of an obsessed lover (Shahrukh Khan) and the lengths he goes to get his true love (Juhi Chawla) who's already married to her husband (Sunny Deol). The film is considered one of Shahrukh Khan's best performances and won him acclaim from critics and audiences alike. Fear that your love may not be reciprocated, fear that you may lose the one you love, fear that your beloved could have a change of heart. In short, fear is the villain in every love story.<br /><br />But in 'Darr' fear is the ultimate expression of passion, of obsession and of sacrifice. 'Darr' is Rahul's (Shahrukh Khan) story whose love and obsession for Kiran (Juhi Chawla) frees him from all fears of life & death. 'Darr' is Sunil's (Sunny Deol) story, whose enduring love and passion for Kiran gives him the courage to face the fear of death.<br /><br />And finally 'Darr' is Kiran's story who is caught between one man's love and another man's obsession. She fears one & fears for the other. One stands for love, the other for life. In this battle between love & life, the supreme victor is love, because love always wins, in life & death. simply "Darr" is one of the best Indian films ever made. | positive |
Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far. <br /><br />The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!<br /><br />Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't. <br /><br />Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.<br /><br />There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie. | negative |
From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.<br /><br />The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.<br /><br />The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.<br /><br />At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.<br /><br />It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
A not bad but also not so great heist film. Kirk Douglas is a recently released from prison safe-cracker who, after turning down an offer from the Mob, decides to pull the job himself. He recruits circus gymnast Giuliano Gemma. Mayhem ensues. Douglas and Gemma soon find themselves pursued by mafia goon Romano Puppo as well as entangled in a really goofy love triangle with Douglas's infinitely patient girlfriend (Florinda Bolkan). Director Michele Lupo keeps the pace moving quickly and there's at least one excellent and creative car chase sequence involving Puppo & Gemma. Though an Italian production, most of the filming appears to have been done in Germany. Douglas is fine, not just slumming it in an Giallo quickie. The striking Bolkan gives a terrific performance. The music is by Ennio Morricone and the cinematography is by the great Tonino Delli Colli, who managed to work with everyone in Italy (from Wertmuller and Fellini to Pasolini and Leone). | negative |
A cut above from the usual straight to video actioneer, Airborne has enough in the tank to keep it going for the full 90 minutes, although you can't help but think of how low former '80's comedy golden boy Steve Guttenburg has stooped to be in such a cheap production (and playing a hard man too!). The plot is simple, the baddies have stolen a deadly virus and Guttenburg and the rest of his goodie pals are sent to retrieve it, Not bad of its kind but not in the same league (obviously) as the films it is compared too on the cover such as AIR FORCE ONE and CON AIR. The cast is good though, with Sean Bean reprising his Brit.-bad guy character which we have had a glimpse of in such box office smashes as GOLDENEYE and PATRIOT GAMES. | negative |
Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.<br /><br />It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.<br /><br />This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.<br /><br />Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.<br /><br />Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.<br /><br />The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!<br /><br />Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books. | negative |
Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. <br /><br />Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, <br /><br />hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.<br /><br />Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. <br /><br />However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.<br /><br />Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10. | negative |
Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry/black/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.<br /><br />With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry/black/dark humour/satire and are all at least 5/10.<br /><br />Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too. | negative |
Jerry spies Tom listening to a creepy story on the radio and seizes the opportunity to scare his nemesis.<br /><br />I didn't find this particular episode that funny: the humour seemed rather constrained and the whole set up was kinda lame (Jerry is essentially the 'bad guy' in this one, tormenting poor Tom for no particular reason).<br /><br />There is the occasional flash of inspiration (such as Tom's literal 'heart in mouth' experience, and the moment when his nines lives are sucked out of his body), but, on the whole, this effort lacks the frenetic pacing, excellent animation and sheer wit of most of T&J's other cartoons. | negative |
I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life. | negative |
A severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr. | negative |
Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves. Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable. Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze. He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning. | positive |
I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. | negative |
This is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.<br /><br />THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo "The Next Big Thing". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.<br /><br />I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!<br /><br /> | positive |
THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.<br /><br />Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.<br /><br />And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.<br /><br />Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.<br /><br />Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.<br /><br />Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable. | negative |
I remember coming home from school to watch up and coming this was the story of a black family that moves out of the gheto into a up class community the family was name Wilson Frank Wilson man with his own construction business his wife Joyce was a bank manager they had 3 teenage kids Kevin Valerie and Marcus. This was a very good show. it was educational with out being preachie. the show was well written. This show gave us a look at a successful African American before the Cosby Show. A lot a black actor appeared on this show from Ester Role to David Hubberd to 227 Stonnie Jackson to name a few. If you are able to find this show on DVD you should get it for your whole family | positive |
I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.<br /><br />Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored... | negative |
I am rating this an 8 because of the premise of the film. The acting was fine, there wasn't anyone that stood out as amazing or appalling. It is disturbingly true that intelligent people are having less and less children, or choose to have none at all...whereas dumb ass "W in '04" supporters are procreating like rabbits. And, though I don't believe the earth will actually exist in 500 years, I can see Mike Judge's parodied prophet coming to be, as life imitating art. The world is being run by idiots, and it will get worse as the intelligent free-thinking people become the minority and the "git 'er done" fans outnumber them. The proof is our farce of an election.<br /><br />But I digress. If you are fortunate enough to have this playing in your city, go see it. I have paid my $7.50 plus popcorn to see FAR WORSE rubbish than this (Date Movie or Napoleon Dynamite anyone?). There are laughs, there are cringes, but overall this is entertaining. If you have half a brain, you will think to yourself how this movie, though funny, is spot on (accurate) and a *tiny* bit uncanny. I'm not surprised AT ALL that this movie is almost completely unknown, as Fox was the one distributing this, and they wouldn't want any of their sheep to see this and think "maybe I WILL read a book, and not watch 'Next', or 'Cheaters', or 'Ow my balls'." If our society doesn't stop the dumbing down of everything,and the bastardisation of the English language (ahem, Mr. Bush), then this really is where we are going. | positive |
No matter what other people have said you can't review this movie without comparing it to the original, if it existed on it's own it would be a 2-3 out of 5 film but it is a remake of a 4-5 out of 5 film and so has standards to live up to and we need to see if it reached those standards. If the film was a re-working or, as in Planet of the Apes, a re-imagining of the original you would be able to look at the film in it's own right, only referencing the original. Imagine it this way, if someone took the model in the 'Mona Lisa', posed her in a different way, and painted her you could only compare the framing,concept etc to the original but if someone just repainted her in the position of the original you would have to compare it totally.<br /><br />That said this film doesn't just fail to be as good as the original it fails spectacularly, like it or not the original was one of the best movies ever made, the shower scene will never be forgotten, the remake was meant to be a celebration of Hitchcock but ended up actually degrading him and his master work.<br /><br />The degrading aspects of this picture were Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche. It's nothing to do with wether they acted better or not it's that the relationship between Norman and Marion in the original was really quite innocent, Norman didn't really understand sex, he had hardly any contact with the outside world and when he meets beautiful Marion and watches her change you feel that he is partly doing it from fascination as he doesn't really understand sex and his attraction to her,this makes Norman sympathetic and almost an anti-hero, you are on his side because he doesn't fully understand the world and is constantly fighting with himself and his 'Mother'. In the remake that whole dynamic is gone, I must admit to Janet Leigh not being my type but she is very attractive and you can see that, Anne Heche is really unattractive and so Norman finding 'her' Marion attractive is unbelievable if you add that to Vince Vaughn's Norman masturbating whilst looking at her and you get a Norman that is just waiting for a chance to jack off at any naked woman no matter what she looks like, who you feel absolutely no sympathy for, they further destroy Norman's innocent nature by putting the porno mags in his room. It destroys a character that we have come to like and feel sorry for, it's like re-making 'It's a wonderful life' and having the main character a pimp, totally degrading.<br /><br />The only other character that I had problems with was Rita Wilson as Caroline, Marion's workmate. In the original when Pat Hitchcock says the line 'he must have noticed my wedding ring' it elicits a response of laughter as she is absolutely kidding herself, when Rita says it it just seems plausible as there really isn't any other reason why any man would flirt with Anne Heche over her.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am very biased, the original 'Psycho' is my favorite film of all time, had the film been a reworking, with a different angle, then you could have turned these characters on their heads and it would have been perfectly acceptable.<br /><br />Hitch famously thaught the film would be too gory in colour and made it in black and white to lessen it. This also made the film more atmospheric and frightening in it's own way and it gave it a beauty that could never be captured in colour and it is a sad statement about how movies are de-sensetising the public that people have said how the shower scene was more frightening in colour. (n.b before people think 'he can't spell' remember I'm from England and we spell it colour)<br /><br />A remake should be just that, re made, this is a forgery, a complete copy and a very bad one at that. I could go on comparing but there is no point, almost everything is superior in the original. The only one thing that is better is the performance of Viggo Mortensen as Sam Loomis, John Gavin was very flat in the original (Hitch called him 'The Stiff' behind his back) and Mortensen gives a more believable if less likeable performance. William H. Macy and Julianne Moore are the only other actors that hold up to the originals.<br /><br />Overall a movie that should be labeled 'Expensive Embarrassing Failed Experiment. Only view if comparing to original or if original is unknown to you. But view original too' The movie would have got a 3 out of 5 if it were original or a reworking but as it is 0.5 out of 5 (for Macy, Moore and Mortensen) | negative |
What a piece of stupid tripe.<br /><br />I won't even waste time evaluating any of the points of this show. It's not worth the time. The one comment I will make is - why get such a DUMB, inarticulate doofus to be the star?!?<br /><br />There aren't many more dismal testimonials to the deteriorating mental condition of the networks than the fact that FOX has stated it will NOT bring back John Doe (a decent series) but WILL bring back brain-dead drivel like Joe Millionaire for yet another round of killing the brain cells of the american public.<br /><br />FOX has lost it, IMHO. | negative |
This may be one of the best movies I have ever seen. It has anything but a trite plot, and leaves one wondering which way it will go next. It is an interesting portrayal of the struggles of youth, youth who are interested in more than immediate gratification, youth who show some concern about the desires and needs of others. | positive |
This movie has a lot of comedy, not dark and Gordon Liu shines in this one. He displays his comical side and it was really weird seeing him get beat up. His training is "unorthodox" and who would've thought knot tying could be so deadly?? Lots of great stunts and choreography. Very creative!<br /><br />Add Johnny Wang in the mix and you've got an awesome final showdown! Don't mess with Manchu thugs; they're ruthless! | positive |
SPOILERS!<br /><br />I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)<br /><br />Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..<br /><br />Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."<br /><br />I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol<br /><br />Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog..... | negative |
I don't understand why making remakes has become the trend. Every remake I have ever seen is awful, and this is no exception. If any of you have seen the quote from Ben Jones, that it is a "sleazy" piece of trash, he is quite right. Why they would take a wonderful television show, which I loved, have never missed an episode, and own seasons 1-4 on DVD, and ruin it, I'll never know. The television show was a family show, and although Daisy has the body, it was really flaunted, or even addressed in the show, save the outfits. A family show has been turned in to a dirty piece of garbage, and I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. Another thing I didn't like was that John Schneider and Tom Wopat are excellent actors (along with the rest of the original cast), and they are also extremely cute. The new Bo and Luke are not even a little cute. That was one of the drawers for the show. The casting is terrible. They could have at least gotten a brunette for Daisy. I don't think Burt Reynolds is a qualified Boss Hogg, either. Every other role he has ever played is totally opposite this role. The only role they cast halfway decent is Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse, but still it is no comparison. Denver Pyle is an actor all his own, and that made him perfect for the role. I think that the casting is awful, the story is awful, and all in all ruined a wonderful show and turned it into a dirty, terrible movie. I wouldn't recommend anyone go see it. I only saw it out of curiosity, plus there was a free ticket in season 4 DVD. I would never have paid to see this movie, but it was free. DON'T PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE. | negative |
I read the recent comments and couldn't wait to see the movie. however, after sitting through 80 minutes of predictable "suprises" that didn't even make me jump and unrealistic villain, i was left hugely disappointed. I thought cartoons were the only movies that were still only 80 minutes long. I thought this might be because of the edits to make it 'R' rated, but the original only contained ten more minutes of "Kill Bill" type blood. When blood sprays out like hoses, reality loses appeal. Add in the killer who's supposed to be a "ghost" but can rip someones head off from the jaw (ala King Kong with the T-Rex), lives through everything and has an ending similar to that of the sopranos finale and you quite possibly have the most over-hyped movie in the last year. After watching the movie i felt like i had seen countless movies with the same plot and method and also felt largely unsatisfied. I dunno what everyone else saw in it, but if you want a good horror movie this weekend, see Halloween, it's definitely worth the $10. When it comes to Hatchet, let's hope the next one IS based on the Book. | negative |
Okay guys, we know why we watch film like "The Invisible Maniac" (just look at the cover, man!). T and A all over the place (with a lot more T than A). But...shouldn't there be a story to go with it?<br /><br />"C'mon," I can hear you say - "this is just girls gettin' naked! Who needs a story??!"<br /><br />Well, if this were called "The NAKED Maniacs", I wouldn't have a problem. But since these guys are cribbing from "The Invisible Man", they need to have a bit of story hereabouts, you know, to keep your mind busy.<br /><br />However, all they can muster up is how this crazy doctor creates an invisibility serum and, when he cracks, uses it to spy on naked women and ends up killing a lot of teenagers. And when you see the smarmy-looking teenagers he goes after, you'll be grateful.<br /><br />One star, for the T and A, but there's a little too much gore for you skin fans, so proceed with caution.<br /><br />TIDBIT - yes, it's THAT Savannah. | negative |
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!! | negative |
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :( | negative |
I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film. | negative |
CONTEXT is everything when one goes to rate a movie. When rating this movie one has to consider the time in which it was made. We didn't really know WHAT the inside of the EARTH was in those days so you can't rag on the movie too much for the plot (based on a much older book). For the era, this was top notch special effects and the production quality was great. I watched this movie in a masterfully restored HD master. For the time the makeup and effects almost make the guys in the rubber suits look plausible as a monster-thing. This is pure movie cheese complete with bad rubber suits, models, and creepy costumes. AWESOME. PS Doug McClure ROCKS! | positive |
Dr. Hackenstein begins at the turn of last century, '1909 The dawn of modern medical science' to be exact. Dr. Eliot Hackenstein (David Muir) is in the early stages of his rejuvenation of living tissue experiments, Dr. Hackenstein manages to bring a skinned rat back to life which confirms he has succeeded in bringing the dead back to life... It's now 'Three years later' & Dean Slesinger (Micheal Ensign) is round the Doc's house for dinner. As Dean Slesinger & Dr. Hackenstein eat they talk about Hackenstien's experiments which Dean Slesinger has always been opposed to, Dr. Hackenstein shows Dean Slesinger his laboratory in his attic where he keeps the severed head of his wife Sheila (Sylvia Lee Baker) who died in an unfortunate 'accident' & can telepathically talk to him (Christy Botkin provides Sheila's voice apparently). Dr. Hackenstein also show's Dean Slesinger a skinned chicken running around in a cage & explains that with the process he has developed he will bring Sheila back to life. The Dean has some sort of seizure & apparently dies. Meanwhile sisters Wendy (Bambi Darro as Dyanne DiRossario) & Leslie Trilling (Catherine Davis Cox) plus their Brother Alex (John Alexis) & their cousin Melanie Victor (Stacey Travis) are driving along near Hackenstein's house when they crash, they seek shelter & assistance & arrive upon Hackenstein's doorstep. Dr. Hackenstein invites the four stranded travellers to stay for the night. Later on Dr. Hackenstein is visited by two grave-robbers, Xavier (Logan Ramsey) & Ruby Rhodes (Ann Ramsey) who deliver a male body when Hackenstein actually needs female parts for Sheila. Dr. Hackenstein being the genius that he is decides not to waste the opportunity of having three young beautiful specimens available & starts to 'borrow' the bits 'n' pieces he needs to complete Sheila...<br /><br />Written & directed by Richard Clark I was pleasantly surprised by Dr. Hackenstein, I'll state right now that it ain't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination but for what it was I actually quite liked it. It moves at a reasonable pace even if it does tend to drag a little bit during it's middle as things settle down. The script tries to mix slapstick humour like a scene when Dr. Hackenstein is trying to restrain Melanie & she tries to gain the attention of his deaf housekeeper Yolanda Simpson (Catherine Cahn) by kicking out & Hackenstein keeping Melanie behind Yolanda's back who is seemingly oblivious to what's happening, with a touch of gore but I'd say Dr. Hackenstein is more of a comedy than horror in conception & feel throughout. There are some tacky puns & sexual innuendo as well which are always good for a laugh, Dr. Hackenstein to Wendy "would you like to see my instruments" as an example. I also thought the scene when Mrs Trilling (Phyllis Diller) reports her missing daughter's to the bemused detective Olin (William Schreiner) was a pretty amusing sequence going round in circle's talking about why he isn't looking for them even though he has only just been told, why the cell doesn't have a prisoner in it & that if he didn't find the cousin not to worry about it. None of it's flat laugh-out-loud but I must admit I found myself smiling on occasion & found the film as whole to be quietly amusing. There isn't a lot of on screen gore, a few severed limbs, Sheila's decapitated head, some medical stitching & those skinned animals which are definitely fake by the way. I liked the characters in Dr. Hackenstein too, which was surprise in itself. The acting isn't brilliant but to give everyone credit they put some effort into it, lots of exaggerated facial movements & some serious overacting means it's never dull, oh & the three birds in Dr. Hackenstein are fit if you know what I mean. Technically the film is OK as well, once again it ain't going to win any Oscars but I have to give the filmmakers at least some credit for trying to pull off a turn of the century period setting. It doesn't always work, the clothes are at odds with each other at times, the girls look like their from Victorian England while the guys look like their from a western. The house looks as if all the filmmakers did was remove any modern object from the room & stick a few candles in there! It comes across as a little bit on the cheap side but it really isn't a bad looking film at all considering. Could have done without the comedy music though. Overall I ended up enjoying Dr. Hackenstein much more than I thought I would, although that in itself isn't a recommendation. It's certainly is not the best comedy horror film ever made & it certainly is not the worst either. A watchable enough piece of harmless fun. | negative |
This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not make the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. Lame. thats what this movie is. | negative |
Jarl and Moodysson are part of an dying breed of political film makers. The Swedish population should appreciate that they try to uncover the truth when the government and media actively distorts and cover up the events surrounding the EU meeting in Gothenburg. It is absolutely heartbreaking to see how these innocent kids have been abused and drugged by the Swedish police and convicted to prison in political trials for sending text messages and as revenge for others actions. The only unfortunate thing about this movie is that it will not reach the broad masses in Sweden as it will only be shown it theaters and not be released on video or aired on television.<br /><br />The political film is important as it can bring new perspectives and insight into complex issues and has a role to play as an educator of the masses. | positive |
This was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.<br /><br />I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.<br /><br />It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!<br /><br />one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ... | negative |
The Thing About My Folks is a wonderful film about relationships - first and foremost an adult son and his father, but also that son with his wife, his sisters and his mother. Paul Reiser has written a semi-autobiographical movie about his relationship with his father. The movie is funny, poignant and thought-provoking. It led me to re-evaluate my own relationship with both my now-deceased father and my adult son. Peter Falk is excellent as Paul's father - the role could not have been better cast. I hope that both Mr. Falk and Mr. Reiser are recognized in next year's movie awards for their efforts - Falk for his performance and Reiser for his script. | positive |
I have just caught this Movie on TCM, and can understand why George Murphy went into Politics if this was the best MGM could serve up to him. It is so slow-moving that the attempt to make it a real film-noir effort does not come off. It featured two of my favourite<br /><br />players in Eve Arden (completely wasted) and Dean Stockwell(the best actor in the Film), but what really hit me was that the leading lady Frances Gifford went through some 90 minutes (it seemed longer!) without changing the expression on her face--her fainting scene was comical. John Hodiak played his role OK, but the script let him, and the rest of the cast, down very badly. I gave it 4 stars mainly because of the photography. It would have been on the first half of the Program when double features were the go. | negative |
This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.<br /><br />I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.<br /><br />Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.<br /><br />Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here. | negative |
Still being of school age, and having to learn Shakespeare almost constantly for the last four years (which is very off-putting of any writer, no matter how good), I didn't really expect to enjoy this film when my English teacher put it on; I thought it'd be the typical English lesson movie: bad acting, awfully shot, badly edited and the dreaded awful old dialog, so, as you can tell, I was all but ready to go into a coma from the go. However, I watched and, much to my disturbance, found myself not only paying attention, but actually enjoying the movie too. This production of Hamlet is possibly one of the best drama movies I have seen in a long time- and it really brings to life what I expect Shakespeare wanted his plays to be like (well, with the difference that this is cinema) much better than my English teacher harking over the text ever possibly could. The story is good, the dialog seems to flow with an unexpected grace that is far from boring (though a little hard to keep up with if you aren't used to Shakespeare's language) and even the smallest parts are performed with a skill you wouldn't expect; mainly, perhaps, due to the staggering number of cameos this movie has. Brian Blessed and Charlton Heston are as great as you'd expect these two veterans to be, even in such small parts, but it is Robin Williams as Osric and Billy Crystal as the Gravedigger who really stand out, giving such minor parts an unexpected zest, as well as offering some comic relief amidst the tragedy.<br /><br />The main stars, of course, are also wonderful. Kenneth Branagh excels as Hamlet, bringing not only the confusion and pain required to the roll, but also a sort of sardonic air which plays beautifully in the comic scenes, making the movie as a whole much more watchable. The other major players are also good, but it is Kenneth Branagh who stands head and shoulders above the rest in the title role.<br /><br />The set pieces, too, are often quite stunning, giving a refreshing change to the danky old castle corridors we're used to seeing in Shakespeare productions, as well as a real sense of the country around them.<br /><br />Of course, the movie, taken as a movie in its own right, is not without faults, but no major ones (the pacing is the only real problem I can think of offhand, as well as the prose for anyone not used to, as I said, Shakesperean language) and, especially when compared to the sort of Shakespeare productions I'm used to seeing in class, it really is quite brilliant. It's even made me rethink my previous typical teenager stance on Shakespeare, that his plays are boring (I came to the conclusion it's not the plays that are boring, merely the teachers who recite them in class). If only they made all of his plays into movies such as this one, English students in schools everywhere might have a higher opinion of the Bard.<br /><br />Overall 7/10 | positive |
Clint Eastwood would star again as the battle-weary Detective Harry Callahan, but would also direct the fourth entry in the 'Dirty Harry' series. 'Sudden Impact' again like the other additions, brings its own distinguishable style and tone, but if anything it's probably the most similar to the original in it's darker and seedy moments (and bestowing a classic line "Go ahead. Make my day")
but some of its humor has to been seen to believe. A bulldog
named meathead that pisses and farts. Oh yeah. However an interesting fact this entry was only one in series to not have it set entirely in San Francisco.<br /><br />The story follows that of detective Callahan trying to put the pieces together of a murder where the victim was shot in the groin and then between the eyes. After getting in some trouble with office superiors and causing a stir which has some crime lord thugs after his blood. He's ordered to take leave, but it falls into a working one where he heads to a coastal town San Paulo, where a murder has occurred similar in vein (bullet to groin and between eyes) to his case. There he begins to dig up dirt, which leads to the idea of someone looking for revenge.<br /><br />To be honest, I wasn't all that crash hot on Eastwood's take, but after many repeat viewings it virtually has grown on me to the point of probably being on par with the first sequel 'Magnum Force'. This well-assembled plot actually gives Eastwood another angle to work upon (even though it feels more like a sophisticated take on the vigilante features running rampant at that time), quite literal with something punishing but luridly damaging. It's like he's experimenting with noir-thriller touches with character-driven traits to help develop the emotionally bubbling and eventual morality framework. His use of images is lasting, due to its slickly foreboding atmospherics. Dark tones, brooding lighting
like the scene towards the end akin to some western showdown of a silhouette figure (Harry with his new .44 automag handgun) moving its way towards the stunned prey on the fishing docks. It's a striking sight that builds fear! Mixing the hauntingly cold with plain brutality and dash of humor. It seemed to come off. A major plus with these films are the dialogues, while I wouldn't call 'Sudden Impact' first-rate, it provides ample biting exchanges and memorably creditable lines
"You're a legend in your own mind". Don't you just love hearing Harry sparking an amusing quip, before pulling out his piece. The beating action when it occurs is excitingly jarring and intense
the only way to go and the pacing flies by with little in the way of flat passages. Lalo Schfrin would return as composer (after 'The Enforcer" had Jerry Fielding scoring) bringing a methodical funky kick, which still breathed those gloomy cues to a texturally breezy score that clicked from the get-go. Bruce Surtees (an Eastwood regular) gets the job behind the camera (where he did a piecing job with 'Dirty Harry') and gives the film plenty of scope by wonderfully framing the backdrops in some impeccable tracking scenes, but also instrument edgy angles within those dramatic moments.<br /><br />Eastwood as the dinosaur Callahan still packs a punch, going beyond just that steely glare to get the job done and probably showing a little more heart than one would expect from a younger Callahan. This going by the sudden shift in a plot turn of Harry's quest for justice
by the badge even though he doesn't always agree with it. I just found it odd
a real change of heart. Across from him is a stupendous performance by his beau at the time Sondra Locke. Her turn of traumatic torment (being senselessly raped along with her younger sister), is hidden by a glassily quiet intensity. When the anger is released, it's tactically accurate in its outcome. Paul Drake is perfectly menacing and filthy as one of the targeted thugs and Audrie J. Neenan nails down a repellently scummy and big-mouthed performance. These people are truly an ugly bunch of saps. Pat Hingle is sturdy as the Chief of the small coastal town. In smaller parts are Bradford Dillman and the agreeably potent Albert Popwell (a regular in the series 1-4, but under different characters). How can you forget him in 'Dirty Harry'
yes he is bank robber that's at the end of the trademark quote "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" | positive |
Some have commented on the subtitles not being a problem in this film - I beg to differ - the nuisances in the facial expressions and subtle interactions between the characters is such that you can not afford to take your eyes away for even a fraction of a second. I tried to watch, on the DVD, in English to overcome this problem (don't make this mistake the result is a travesty). The only way to get the full benefit is to watch it two or three times in quick succession so you know it and then ignore the subtitles. An acting master class - not in the dialogue but body language.<br /><br />It is the little things - the postmaster/shop keeper puffs out his chest and goes in to get his cap before delivering a letter from !France!. The General's bemused expression as his delight in a bunch of perfect grapes elicits a biblical reference with a profundity worthy of 'Being There'.<br /><br />The cinematography is awesome and the bleak minimalist village with its washed out colour just accentuates the sumptuousness of the feast when it comes. I have a friend who claims to be descended from the Borgias and who's family motto is 'If it is worth doing, it is worth doing to excess' - Amen.<br /><br />I laugh out loud and cry each time I watch this film | positive |
Well, of course not, women are overly sensitive and needy on average, which is interestingly portrayed from mother to whore, though not pseudo-artistically, extravagantly, or blatantly dwelt on. Unlike many of you I have only seen La Maman et La Putain twice. As many good films, I noticed my opinion of it improved after a second viewing. All that I know is what I have seen and have yet to delve into further exploits until I myself have acquired the dvd. I have yet to figure out precisely why I enjoy this movie so much, but really, what do I care why? Though I'm sure I could and will form some wonderful explanation. All right, so you may disagree, perhaps it is a bit boring at times, I'm not an expert. The blonde reminds me of a lovely Grushenka. | positive |
One of the most sublime of American masterpieces, Morrissey opens the film by sexualizing Dallesandro, with his open mouth snoring on a pillow. We wonder, is he coming off a heroin high? We just see his face, then, flash, his body, flash, his naked rear. I can't think of another film that used this flash-blip form of editing so well to create a hypnotic, druggy mood, an editing method that works wonderfully as both pacing and style. After that introduction, when Dallesandro opens his mouth, his accent is jarring -- we expect him to be some kind of soft-spoken androgyne; instead, he's got the voice of a street thug -- Morrissey isn't comfortable letting our assumptions go unchecked. The lengthy opening is very sexy and playful -- it's a combination of martial troubles, Dallesandro's fascinating lip-rubbing kisses, and early morning sexual escapades; it all kind of flows together, if not always smoothly, then emotionally realistically.<br /><br />What I got from this was the same as what I got from "The 400 Blows" when I first saw it -- this is like a 20-something continuation of that story. There's a sense of camaraderie between the flesh sellers and the buyers; when Dallesandro walks the street looking for men (to fund his wife's abortion) there's the feeling of a secret handshake as boys make deals with each other. I never found it boring, though nothing happens -- nothing happens brilliantly, the boys hanging around, as they do, waiting for tricks. The main trick that Dallesandro finds is fascinating to watch, using Greek descriptions and only touching his back, a form of aesthetic body worship on the man's part. It's also dreadfully funny ("I'm not talking to an empty bed, am I?"). It's one of the most revealing scenes in the movie -- in any movie, I think; certainly any movie dealing with sex and sex for sale. When Dallesandro's eyes seem red and swollen, we can't tell if it's because he's drunk, ashamed, embarrassed, or all.<br /><br />The conversations in the film are cut-up -- they don't matter. (The film is silent in a few scenes, some of the most poignant and beautiful you may ever experience.) Yet when Morrissey chooses to include one, the way he includes it (we sort of piece it together), it's startling, such as one conversation between Dallesandro and a newbie hustler -- and neither of them ever mentioning the word "gay" or "hustler." What follows is a scene where we listen to a pair of transvestites as Dallesandro gets serviced -- this just after explaining to the newbie "getting used" to the job.<br /><br />Dallesandro is a subject worthy of the attention paid to him, both by his clients and Morrissey. He's less than effective as an actor, in the sense of acting as performing, but as far as revealing something he's incredible -- he's someone we immediately want to feel above, yet we go through his experiences, with all their complexities, and we're forced to try and know him. He's the kind of blank slate that we're drawn to but can't get a hold on. And of course he's incredibly striking -- forgetting everything else, this is partially a testament to the beauty of the male body, Dallesandro's gorgeous torso and permanently erect nipples.<br /><br />The movie has one devastating scene, but like everything else you can't really master it -- a girl says that she's been raped, and her only self-defense is in saying that, had the rapist only asked for sex, wooed her, he would have gotten a better lay. It's shattering. The movie has feeling for everyone, but even better than that, it's not merely sympathetic, it actually attempts to help us understand human beings -- and without ever dictating what it is we're meant to be understanding. It neither looks down on nor glamorizes the people within the film. It feels inclusive when we see Joe's arm around a transvestite. When he reads a letter (he talks about not getting past grade eight at one point), he's utterly charming, as he pauses on a word...then says, "woteva," and continues.<br /><br />You can learn something more profound from the interaction between Dallesandro and one of his clients in terms of gay-straight relationships than you can from any case study. Here we have the young boy who smiles (his top lip disappears as he does so) when a 30-something gym bunny Korean war veteran runs his fingers through his hair; it's a scene that feels very profound, this adult man sharing something with a younger version of himself -- it's not two gay men together, or a gay man paying a straight man, it's something else you can't put your finger on; questions of sexuality are beside the point. (Never before has popping a pimple seemed as affectionate.) After sharing something with each other emotionally (though with Dallesandro, since he's there for money, it's never apparent why he's there; though he's never less than sincere, which may be his most disarming quality), "So...can you help me out?" The man says sure. "I don't mean my pants!" 10/10 | positive |
I honestly can't believe that this film isn't more highly rated. Claude Chabrol could be described as something like a French Alfred Hitchcock, and while this film is only the second one of his that I've seen (the first being Le Boucher), I can already see that this guy is something special just on the strength of these two films. The film is a French and Canadian co-production, and takes place in Canada. The cast is made up of British and Canadian stars and the high quality performances bode well with the rest of the film; most of which is high quality also. The film is a murder mystery and begins when a young girl covered in blood is brought into a police station. After being questioned by Inspector Carella, it emerges that the young girl, Patricia, and her sister Muriel were attacked by a man who killed the sister and only just allowed Patricia to flee. However, as the investigation goes on, Patricia goes back to the station to give new evidence, which reveals a far more shocking identity to the murderer.<br /><br />The performances in this film are excellent. Donald Sutherland is subdued as usual, but he suits the role he's given here very well and I wouldn't hesitate to name his performance in Blood Relatives as one of his very best. The film also features supporting turns from British stars Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings who both give good turns; Pleasance in particular who shows just how great an actor he can be and highlights what a shame it is that he went on to waste himself in Halloween films. The unknown Aude Landry also gives a great performance in her role as Patricia. The movie is very mysterious for the first hour and really keeps the audience hooked. When Inspector Carella discovers Muriel's diary, the film turns into more of a drama in which the girl's last actions are shown; and while this section of the film is not as good as what went before it, it's still interesting and leads into a great twist at the end! Overall, Blood Relatives is a great film that really deserves to be better seen. Le Boucher is a better known effort from Chabrol, but for my money this is at least as good! Highly recommended viewing. | positive |
"I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.<br /><br />Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."<br /><br />You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.<br /><br />So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.<br /><br />"Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.<br /><br />Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.<br /><br />Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.<br /><br />The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.<br /><br />Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."<br /><br />Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.<br /><br />Match, cut. | positive |
I was 19 years old when I saw first saw this film, in the theater. I have a vivid memory of a different ending. Not completely different but significantly. I just watched the movie last night and I was wrong, so I guess the following can't be called a spoiler, since it never happened. The ending I remember was that the boy was hiding in the house completely naked, Frances Austen found him quite easily and after she confronted him, she slowly sank to her knees and went down on him off camera. Only his face was in the frame and it was pretty obvious he was letting it happen, albeit against his will. But nothing like this showed up in the movie. Sandy Dennis was 32 years old when she made this movie, Michael Burns was 22. In the movie, he complains to his sister that Frances makes too big a deal about sex. Yeah? Well, then, so go to bed with her dude, and get it over with. WTF? | positive |
The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.<br /><br />There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.