review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting. | negative |
Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted. | negative |
I just finished watching Going Overboard. I have to say that we should send every copy of this film to Iraq and make them watch. I even tried to get a blind women to watch this and she turned it off in like 20 min. Adam Sandler could not find a better project than this? As for the writing, if thats what you want to call it, those responsible should be forced to watch this movie forever in Hell!! I believe that somewhere I read that the budget for this film was $10,000 and they were way under. Did Wallmart get a good deal on this? Every store has a big huge bin of this crap sitting on the sales floor. The only good thing about this movie is you can use the DVD as a coaster, or trade it to a friend, but then they might not be your friend anymore!! | negative |
Forbidden Planet represents the kind of science fiction that is precious in cinema, especially from the 1950s. There was The Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds, but lest not forget this gem which took some of its story from Shakespeare's The Tempest to tell a tale of astronauts on a planet that has a doctor on it who has made a remarkable breakthrough. It's the kind of breakthrough that is not so much incredible to look at (though for 1956 it does look quite amazing to look at some of those sets and that gigantic machine the doctor creates), but with its emphasis on the characters and its themes of technology taken too far by the more primitive side of human nature even when we don't know we're channeling it.<br /><br />On the surface- that is in the first ten minutes- it looks standard, if a little more professionally acted and directed with better skill than the B-movies of the period. A ship of astronauts are on a mission to the planet Altair-4 to bring back an expedition that went missing decades before. But the only one left is Dr. Morbis (Walter Pidgeon) and his daughter, who somehow were immune to an attack that left everyone else dead. Morbius appears to be a cordial and highly intelligent man, and his technology looks to be so impressive that the only thing the astronauts, led by the Skipper (Leslie Nielsen), can think to do is to report it back to their superiors on Earth.<br /><br />But there's a catch - something is killing off members of the crew of the ship, one by one, every night, even when the others keep an eye out and then put up an invisible electric fence, which the invisible something goes through easily. Meanwhile, there's some romance possibly between the Skipper and Alraira, and there's a more pushy vibe from the doctor: you shouldn't have come to the planet to start, and now you need to go. What happens from this is even more fascinating, just on a purely intellectual level, but Forbidden Planet never forgets that its audience should also be entertained by this story while getting some useful ideas. While everyone may remember Robbie the Robot, and for good reason, perhaps the most unforgettable image for me is the monster realized on screen with the crew firing to no avail, animated with red electricity and looking so beastly that it looks out of Fantasia.<br /><br />The acting from Pidgeon is subtle: you wouldn't expect him to be a villain, though something is there in the character and in the performance that speaks to this, and by the end it makes the character far more complex than one would expect. And the other performances are workmanlike but also excellent, from Nielsen as a born leader to Holliman providing some great comic relief as the Cook (who, I should add, helps with one of the funniest scenes in the film with those gallons of bourbon Robbie provides). And the effects for its time are extraordinary (sophisticated in a nostalgic pulp way for today too), and the music, done by electronics, is beautiful in its "tones". But ultimately it's the screenplay and careful direction from Hilcox that puts this a notch above the rest of the B-movie lot. When it's meant to be funny, it's intentionally so and it works. When it's dramatic it connects quite well even in its stiff moments with the actors. And when we are made to think about a horrible situation, it comes on gradually, with nuance, not shoved in our faces or injected with mega-action.<br /><br />An inspiration for many other sci-fi films, and a fine marker of thoughtful science fiction stories and books from time-old, it's a classy and entertaining classic. | positive |
This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an amazing performance from Bruce Willis!. All the characters are great, and I thought Willis and Spencer Breslin were just awesome together, plus Bruce Willis is simply amazing in this!. This is definitely one of Bruce's best comedic performances (The waaaaaaaaaamabulance thing was great) and I thought it was very well written and made as well, plus The finale is especially cool!. It's good natured and it was cool how you can see Russell's (Willis) character change throughout the film! plus the ending was pretty good. I think this should be higher then 6.0 and it's one of the best Disney films I have ever seen! plus it has many surprising moments throughout. All the characters are extremely likable, and it also has a cute love story angle too it as well, plus Bruce and Spencer Breslin both had some really funny lines (Holy Smokes!). This is one of Bruce's most underrated films in my opinion, its an awesome heartwarming film, with a neat story and an an amazing performance from Bruce Willis and I say its a must see!. The Direction is great!. Jon Turteltaub does a great job here with really good camera work, and just keeping the film at a very fast pace. The Acting is excellent!. Bruce Willis is amazing as always and is amazing here, he gives one of his best comedic performances, is hilarious had wonderful chemistry with both Spencer Breslin and Emily Mortimer, had some funny lines, and was dead on throughout the movie, he was one of the main reasons I liked this movie so much! (Willis Rules!!!!!!!). Spencer Breslin is fantastic as the younger version of Russell, he was very funny and didn't get on my nerves once, he is one of the better child actors out there!. Emily Mortimer is good as Amy and was really cute I liked her she had decent chemistry with Bruce too. Lily Tomlin is funny as Janet I liked her quite a bit. Jean Smart is good with what she had to do, which was not much. Rest of the cast do fine. Overall a must see!. **** out pf 5 | positive |
Possibly John Cassavetes best film to date, and definitely his funniest. Seymour Cassel plays the young Moskowitz smitten with real-life wife of Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands, excellent as usual. A must see gem of a film, if you can locate it. | positive |
I have watched this movie a few times and never really thought it was that funny, but it's still fun to watch and good for a few laughs.<br /><br />Its about women that work at a company and their boss is a jerk and they end up giving him a taste of his own medicine, and try to get the respect they deserve.<br /><br />The acting is really good. Dabney Coleman is one of those 80's stars that plays a good bad guy, not really evil, just unlikeable. Dolly Partin is lovable and fun to watch in comedies and her down south wit really shines here. Jane Fonda is so-so and does little for me. Lily Tomlin is the best thing about this movie, she has the funniest lines and made me laugh out loud several times, gotta love her.<br /><br />I could recommend this to anyone that likes 80's comedy. I like the movie but it has things about it that I don't like. It starts off great and has a nice flow and then everything starts coming together all at once and made me care less about the characters. They all have little fantasies about what they would like to do the boss and although 'cute' I just thought it slowed down the flow of the movie. As the movie goes on it once again picks up and the funniest things happen and then once again it slows down, only to wrap up in a quick manner thats too good to be true.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars, but give it a try if you haven't seen it. I think depending on ones mood it may be more or less likable. | negative |
I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.<br /><br />Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.<br /><br />Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.<br /><br />Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd. | negative |
As much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).<br /><br />I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf. | negative |
Distortion is a movie that sort of caught me by surprise.. A sort of multi layered drama that focuses on a man writing a play about his life experiences that are happening to him right at this moment. To be more concise, he feels that his wife is cheating on him, so he hires a private eye to snoop on him. His wife has no idea that this is happening. Meanwhile, the actors in this play are also having a few whoopdedoodles up their sleeves by fooling around with each other and with, shall we say, unscrupulous people in the world of Israel. The whole thing culminates in a theater with all the actors present and the predictable (but not really) happens.<br /><br />The director of the piece really keeps things moving along with the ensemble cast of characters, and edits in a way that makes you pay attention, This is a fun film actually, one which I didn't mind viewing and would recommend people check out. | positive |
I watched this movie last night on one of the pay-per-view channels, and while watching it I quickly wondered why I bothered. In all honesty I really did expect something more from this film. Maybe something along the lines of 'Conspiracy Theory'. Why? Maybe because of the casting. I mean, Nicolas Cage and Harvey Keitel, after all. Not to mention Jon Voight and Christopher Plummer. Now I'm wondering, why did they bother? But instead of an absorbing action cum mystery drama I was caught up in a pastiche of breakneck silliness a là 'The Goonies', which to my great surprise appears to have garnered some actual critical praise. Perhaps it's because 'The Goonies' was clearly targeted toward the pre-teen and teen audiences. Whereas 'National Treasure', judging from the previews, was seriously intended to appeal to an adult audience.<br /><br />Suspension of disbelief is one thing. It's how one can enjoy sci-fi and horror. But I found myself actually resisting the heaping tablespoons of paranoid and conspiracy-laden tripe being shoved at the audience. Oh, the screenwriter threw around all the jargon intended to evoke a sense of serious engaged wonderment. "Wow! The Masons. The Knights Templars. You know, this could really be true!" I think the writer really lost me when Gates said the Founding Fathers hid the treasure to keep it out of the hands of the British! And just were did the Knights Templar come from? New Jersey? Oh, I forget. From France! Which goes a long way to explain how it ended up in Philadelphia during the Revolution. It was brought there by agents of Napoleon! Anyway, you see what I'm getting at. The premise of the movie is interesting. And I really do think it could have succeeded as a serious mystery drama. But it just comes off as another kid flick in grown-up clothing. In the end I think it asks the audience not simply to suspend belief but to render itself willfully ignorant to an insulting degree.<br /><br />I've just finished watching several items by Werner Herzog and Istvan Szabo. It's a shock to switch from fine dining to Hollywood Big Mac and fries.<br /><br />Okay, okay. If you pant over chases, explosions, and 'gee-whiz' gimmickry you'll enjoy 'National Treasure'. But it's the sort of movie, well, have you ever stood outside a cinema waiting to get in while the previous audience comes out? And all the young kids are talking excitedly among themselves and saying things like, "Wow! Did you see how that thing blew up? That was so cool!" 'National Treasure' is that kind of movie. | negative |
The Kid Power Hour featured two segments: Hero High and Shazam. let's start with Hero High.<br /><br />Hero High was intended to be a new Archies cartoon, featuring their superhero identities: Pureheart the Powerful (Archie), Captain Hero (Jughead), Superteen (Betty), and Evilheart (Reggie). However, Filmation couldn't get the rights to do it so they tweaked it a bit and came up with this. Here's the breakdown of characters: Captain California (Archie), Glorious Gal (Betty), Weatherman (Jughead), Dirty Trixie (Veronica), Rex Ruthless (Reggie), Principal Samson (Mr weatherbee) and Miss Grimm (Miss Grundy). The show featured live action sketches, as well as cartoon adventures. The humor was the typical lame Filmation jokes, but at least it had a sense of fun about it. It was entertaining enough for kids, though not quite up to previous standards.<br /><br />The other segment was Shazam!, which was very faithful to the comics, unlike the previous live action show. All of the major villains made appearances, as well as the entire Marvel Family (including Freckles Marvel, in at least one episode). Uncle Dudley had the correct WC Fields voice and shady character, as well as his perpetually acting up "Shazambago". Burr Middleton, a veteran of 70's TV shows, like Fish, voiced the Big Red Cheese, while Alan Oppenheimer (Rudy Wells in the early 6 Million Dollar Man episodes and voice of Skeletor in He-Man) handled Dr. Sivana.<br /><br />The Marvels had always had a sense of whimsy to them, so little alteration was required for their adventures, to meet the Broadcast Standards and Practices requirements (the censors). As such, the stories were very imaginative and inventive. Amongst the villains who appeared were: Dr. Sivana, Black Adam, Mr. Atom, Mr. Mind, Aunt Minerva, Ibac, and the crocodile creatures. Mr. Tawky Tawny also made his on screen debut.<br /><br />Hero High is due to be released from BCI, but Shazam! is still in limbo, as well as the live-action show. Hopefully, the proposed movie will help shake them loose on DVD. It is well worth watching and deserving of DVD treatment. | positive |
In Budapest, Margaret Sullavan (as Klara Novak) gets a job as clerk in a gift shop; there, she bickers with co-worker James Stewart (as Alfred Kralik). The two don't get along on the job because each has fallen in love with a unseen pen pal. Watching Ernst Lubitsch direct these stars through the inevitable is predictably satisfying. <br /><br />Even better is a sub-plot involving shop owner Frank Morgan (as Hugo Matuschek), who suspects his wife is having an affair. Hiring a private detective, Mr. Morgan confirms his wife of 22 years is having sex with one of his younger employees. Morgan, painfully realizing, "She just didn't want to grow old with me," and the supporting characters are what keeps this film from getting old.<br /><br />********* The Shop Around the Corner (1/12/40) Ernst Lubitsch ~ James Stewart, Margaret Sullavan, Frank Morgan, Joseph Schildkraut | positive |
I've just had the evidence that confirmed my suspicions. A bunch of kids, 14 to 22 put on the DVD of "Titanic" on a fantastic state of the art mega screen home entertainment type deal. Only two of them had actually seen it before. But they all had seen the moment of Kate, Leo and Celine Dion so many times that most of them felt they had seen the whole movie. Shortly after the epic started, they started to get restless, some of them left asking the others -- "call us when the iceberg appears" Over an hour and a half into the movie, only the two girls who had seen the movie before, were still there. They started shouting: iceberg, iceberg. A stampede followed, they all came back to see the sinking of the Titanic. They sat open mouthed, emitting Ohs and far outs. So, just like I thought when the movie first burst into the scene. What is this? One and a half hours waiting for the bloody thing to sink but what about the rest of the of it. Dr. Zivagho, for instance, had a similar running time, but think how much takes place in that film within the same period of time. In "Titanic" Leo teaches Kate how to spit. Look at the faces and hands of the, supposedly, creme de la creme in the first class dining room of the ship. Look at the historical details, if you can find them. The storyline is so thin that they have to introduce guns and shootings in a ship that is about to sink. The real sinking here is of film standards. All the efforts are focus on special effects and opening week ends. The film went on to become the highest grossing movie of all time so, what do I know? | negative |
I had been looking forward to How to Lose Friends & Alienate People for months, particularly due to the fact that Kirsten Dunst and Simon Pegg were starring. Simon Pegg is a comedic genius and Kirsten Dunst has always been a favorite actress of mine. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People hit the spot! Of course not perfect, but very enjoyable and funny. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People follows the life of Sidney Young, a smalltime, bumbling, British celebrity journalist, who is hired by an upscale magazine in New York City. In spectacular fashion Sidney enters high society and burns bridges with bosses, peers and superstars. After disrupting one black-tie event by allowing a wild pig to run rampant, Sidney catches the attention of Clayton Harding, editor of Sharp, and accepts a job with the magazine in New York City. Clayton warns Sidney that he'd better impress and charm everyone he can, if he wants to succeed. Instead, Sidney instantly insults and annoys fellow writer Alison Olsen (Kirsten Dunst). He dares to target the star clients of power publicist Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson). He also upsets his direct boss Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston). Sidney finds creative ways to annoy nearly everyone. His saving grace, a rising starlet Sophie Maes (Megan Fox) who develops an odd affection for him. In time, Allison's friendship might be the only thing saving Sydney from his downward spiraling career. The storyline is very interesting and the acting was top notch with what the actors were given. Simon Pegg is still hilarious as ever! He makes Sydney bumbling, obnoxious, and annoying as real as it gets, but later in time making Sydney not just likable, but also a real character who you root for in the end. Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges were brilliant! Kirsten had some very wonderful acting and hilarious scenes, and Jeff Bridges is just Jeff f*cking Bridges! How can you not like him?! He makes Clayton a very humorous character with some wit and overall you just love the guy. Gillian Anderson, Megan Fox, and Danny Huston were great as the supporting cast. Each had their own personality that were overall pretty unlikable, but that's what just made the film work. One thing I didn't enjoy was how one dimensional some of the characters were. I understand that most were the supporting cast, but some of the cast was underused and could've given the film some more spice to it. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People will never be on anyone's top 10 films ever, or even top 10 comedies ever, but it has a very high entertainment level and some scenes may even charm you as well. How to Lose Friends & Alienate People is definitely one of the better romantic comedies of the year! 8/10 | positive |
No, this isn't a sequel to the fabulous OVA series, but rather a remake of the events that occurred after the death of Ghim (and the disappearance of Woodchuck). It is also more accurate to the novels that inspired this wonderful series, which is why characters (namely Orson and Shiris) are reintroduced, and why the story may seem slightly different to those used to the OVA. (The booklet included in the set provides excellent answers to such questions, as do various online sites.) The first eight episodes of this 27-part TV series focus on the fateful battle at Demon Dragon Mountain. The remaining 19 episodes introduce us to Spark, a blue-haired knight wannabe who identifies with Parn, and his ragtag team of misfits as they attempt to stop the Dark Wizard Wagnard from resurrecting Kardis the Destroyer.<br /><br />While it isn't quite the equivalent of the original LODOSS WAR (we all love the finale where Parn saves Deedlit from Wagnard, don't we?), this TV follow-up is still great fun for fantasy fans. Even if the animation is limited (and a step down from the artistic streak of the first LODOSS), this 27-part series has its elements of appeal. The fully-realized characters, engaging storyline, magic, romance, and a superb soundtrack scored by Kaoru Wada of NINJA SCROLL, all give this uneven spin-off some punch.<br /><br />While the OVA dub of LODOSS has been criticized for one reason or another, I generally liked it and still consider it one of my favorite dubs. So I had significant hopes for the dub for CHRONICLES, made in 1999-2000. For the most part, the LODOSS TV English track is of passable (if not stellar) quality; it does, however, have its share of problems. Much of the original cast who lent their English voices to the characters of LODOSS return (including Lisa Ortiz as Deedlit!), which is a nice bonus. On the other hand, Billy Regan's more mature sounding Parn is a bit offputting. He doesn't do a bad job, but his voice came across as grating for the first eight episodes (causing some anti-dub fans to instantly diss the dub), but by the time Spark and company take the stage, I found it less bothersome. (I don't know if it's because he improved or if it just grew on me.) Also, not everyone from the OAV dub returns. Jayce Reeves only voices Wagnard (terrifically) for one episode; he's replaced by Pete Zarustica for the whole show, who gives a scratchy, but still malevolent turn (as well as the expected evil laughter). Anthony Cruise's Kashue, on the other hand, is too weary and takes about five or so episodes to find his stride. Oliver Gregory is probably the most effective as Orson, especially during his final dramatic scenes.<br /><br />Aside from Lisa Ortiz (Deedlit), Karen Smith (Shiris), John Knox (Ashram), and Al Muscari (Slayn), the dub's best voices come from some of the newer characters, including Crispin Freeman (Spark, Maar, Garrack -episodes 16-27-), Roxanne Beck (Little Neese), Meg Frances (who voices Pirotess in the OAV but also voices Ryna with vulnerability and sassiness as well as Karla) and especially Angora Deb (who steals every scene she's in as Leaf the Half-Elf). The rest of the cast isn't terrible by any means, but a little more uneven than the OAV dub. Some are all right (Aldonova, Greevus) while others are lackluster (Hobb, palace guards, dragons, etc.) and few were awful (in particular, Prince Reona's VA is too harsh and monotone for a fighter of justice).<br /><br />In fact the lack of aural continuity (some cast members get new voices for some unexplained reason by the time we get to some of the later episodes) is one of the problems of the dub. Others include less memorable and more awkward sounding dialogue, uneven synchronization, and finally (I apologize in advance to the fans of this) the LODOSS ISLAND segments. These offbeat, super-deformed interludes at the end of each episode will either amuse or drive you batty. Admittingly, I at first found them to be a major nuisance, but they sorta grew on me after a while. (Besides, there are some showstoppingly hilarious lines such as "I'm King Kashue, and this is my CASHEW! I'm REALLY quite a nut!") These flaws rank the dub for CHRONICLES just a notch just below that for the OVA, resulting in an uneven English track summed up best as "OK".<br /><br />If one wonders if the Japanese language track is the preferred listening choice, well, guess what? The Japanese version has its good and bad points, too. While some voices are less annoying than the English language track, I found others to be less appealing than the English equivalents (in particular, the actress who does Deedlit is nowhere nearly as good as Lisa Ortiz OR Yumi Tohma). Plus, I should mention that the Japanese cast is NOT THE SAME AS THE OVA. Because the series was made seven years after the original, all but one (Sho Hayami) of the cast members are replaced by new ones. Although they do a respectably good job, it may be a major annoyance for those who were used to the Japanese OVA cast. Shows that not everything in Japanese is better than English, eh? Despite its flaws, CHRONICLES OF THE HEROIC KNIGHT is still a fine series which deserves to hold its own ground. Its not without its rough spots and doesn't always live up to its predecessor, yet there's enough good points to counter the bad, making this a moderately enjoyable fantasy Anime. | positive |
Always enjoy the great acting talents of Harry Hamlin,(Jim Lansford),"Strange Hearts",'01, who plays a straight as an arrow husband, who seems to get all kinds of attention from very charming young women, namely, Lisa Zane,(Lynne),"Monkeybone",'01, who is a co-worker with Jim Lansford and you wonder why he doesn't try to hit on her for some fun. Annie Potts,(Kris Lansford),"Breaking the Rules",'92,is a very warm and sweet loving wife to Jim and has complete trust in her husband. Kris wants to always keep her husband happy and even buys him a home with out him even seeing it for himself. This film will keep you guessing right to the very END! | positive |
Old Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard "billy club" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of "shrunken heads" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane. | negative |
First, I did like this film. It was well acted by all.<br /><br />However, I don't understand comments I hear from people about a surprise ending. I knew nothing about this movie going in except a few "gotta-see" recommendations, but I knew where the plot was going in under ten minutes. (I won't mention what clued me in so as not to spoil a good film for others.) Still, despite it seeming obvious, I kept watching. It was nice to see how everything played out, filling in the details and the character motivations in later scenes.<br /><br />I don't hate it when I guess the ending early in a film. I only hate it when the road to resolution is lined with boring scenery.<br /><br />Will Smith's screen persona is just likable, even when he's playing such a troubled character. He's energetic and believable in everything that I've seen him do. Seven Pounds is another fine performance.<br /><br />Rosario Dawson is a solid performer, portraying a quirky, rather upbeat character despite a terminal heart condition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and with Rosario, if you don't find her gorgeous, you should think about replacing your eyes.<br /><br />It was nice to see Woody Harrelson back on the screen. I haven't seen him much lately, but that could just be me. Woody didn't have a tremendous amount of screen time, but he sold his jolly, piano-playing, blind man character for all it was worth. Excellent.<br /><br />A cursory bit of research on the box jellyfish tells me that its venom is cardiotoxic, neurotoxic and dermatonecrotic. I would think this makes it a questionable choice for both pet and plot.<br /><br />Overall, I have to recommend this film not for the plotting, but for some very good performances, and for the fact that it tends to evoke some of the tragic emotions that we generally try to avoid. | positive |
Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.<br /><br />The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them "normal". By "normal" they actually mean "ordinary and tedious".<br /><br />At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main "story arc" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.<br /><br />The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of "Battlestar Galactica" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.<br /><br />DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. "Babylon 5" and "Battlestar Galactica" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation. | negative |
Peter Jacksons version(s) are better films overall from objective point of view. That being said, they are not my favorite screen versions of Lord Of The Rings, and let me explain why. <br /><br />Firstly, the acting of the on-screen characters is just too ordinary and uninspiring with Jackson's LOTR. The whole cast is too run of the mill. "Are you claiming that those silly cartoon characters of Ralph Bakshi version are better actors than real people?" one could ask. Well, they are not really silly(save for Hobbits, later about them) and they certainly pack more personality than Jackson's party - even with much more limited dialogue time. And that is because of superior _voice_ acting of the Bakshi's LOTR. Take Aragorn for example. In this version his voice is deep and charismatic with full of authority(Aragorn the lord)and with a seasoned rasp(Aragorn the ranger). This is due to John Hurt's brilliant voice acting. Compare that to Viggo Mortensen's rather high pitched sound with no soul and the duel gets quickly uneven: Hurt beats Mortensen hands down. <br /><br />And then there is Gandalf. Probably the most dominating(and the most popular) character in the whole saga. In this Bakshi version Gandalf(William Squire) is a real wizard. And by that I don't mean he shoots bolts from his fingertips(he does not), but his presence is just captivating. He is a mystical, powerful and can switch from gentle old man to a scary person with ease. Add to that his looks: Tall, old as the ancient oak, beard long as his body, sharp eyes, wizardy hook nose and of course, the classical wizard hat. A Perfect Gandalf, just like in the books. Ian McKellen's Gandalf in the other hand, is simply just too boring. He looks too human, sounds too human, acts too human and wears no hat or wields no sword. Yes a sword. In this Bakshi version Gandalf scores couple of bloody orc kills with his sword(as he did in the books). And those are stylish slow motion kills. Gandalf is not a power to be messed with. And it must be noted, that while I'm sad to say this, the great Christopher Lee didn't bring Saruman alive. Fraser Kerr in this movie did, even with a very limited screen time and lines.<br /><br />Before I move completely to visual aspects of the movie, it must be mentioned that the voice acting and the general presenation of the Orcs are also superior to Jackson's pretendeous bad guys. Bakshi's orcs taunt their enemies(or each other) constantly with growls, screams and nasty language. They are more believable as monsters and are more faithful to the book in my opinion. And finally, the Black Riders - or the Nazgul. Those ultimate bad guys are scary ghosts in this one - not just some riders wearing black. And they speak with haunting voice, which mesmerizes their victim. My favorite scene in the film is when the Nazgul are chasing Frodo near the river. While Peter Jackson couldn't do anything but show the riders simply chasing the party, Bakshi throws in a nightmarish dream with some cool slow motion scenes and thundering sky.<br /><br />But as much I like this film more than Jackson's, the latter are, if only technically, still better. And that is because of some key visuals. As you know Bakshi LOTR features a mixture of animated characters(all hobbits and the main cast) and real actors covered with paint. I don't really have a problem using real people in animation this way, but they just don't fit very well with traditional cartoon figures. This is especially true with humans(Riders of Rohan, tavern people etc.) Orcs are different matter, since they are meant to look very distinctive from other characters. Orcs, while played by humans with animation mix, look far superior to Jacksons version. They have brownish-green skin, shiny red eyes, flat face and pointed teeth. <br /><br />Biggest screw up in this films visuals, howerver, are the Hobbits. While I prefer almost every character in Bakshi version compared to Jackson, the latter has clearly superior Hobbits, in fact they are perfect. With Bakshi you get some irritating and rather poorly drawn humanoid Disney bambies. And you are forced to spend a lot of movie time with them, so be warned. Again, the voice acting is OK with them too, but the actors mouths cannot save the "immersion damage" made by these little weasels. Well, I never really liked those halflings anyway. <br /><br />General failures in the Bakshi script are well known. Limited playing time(with limited budget) and a lot of missing scenes. So while this film covers nearly half of the story, it doesn't do it in extensive detail compared to Jackson's version. <br /><br />In a summary the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR has a superior:<br /><br />-overall atmosphere (it feels more like Middle-Earth) -overall voice acting -music (I really dig the fantasy score by Kont & Rosenman) -Gandalf -Aragorn (One of the John Hurt's finest roles) -King Theoden -Orcs -Black Riders -Elrond (He's not some fairy hippie in this one!)<br /><br />While Jackson version is better:<br /><br />-because it covers the whole story -overall visuals and special effects -Gollum/Smeagol -Balrog -Hobbits<br /><br />Lord of the Rings by Ralph Bakshi, even with it's well known shortcomings, is one of the best animation films ever made and it captures the atmosphere of Tolkien's fantasy world very well, if not perfectly. I'll give it a score of 8½ out of 10. | positive |
Seven young people go to the forest looking for a bear.Soon they are all stalked and viciously murdered by a crazy Vietnam veteran."Trampa Infernal" is a pretty entertaining Mexican slasher that reminds me a lot "The Zero Boys".The film is fast-paced and there are some good death scenes like throat slashing or axe in the neck.Unfortunately there is not much gore,so fans of grand-guignol will be disappointed.However if you are a fan of slasher movies give this rarity a look.Mexican horror flicks are quite obscure(I have seen only "Alucarda" and "Don't Panic"),so this should be another reason to see this enjoyable slasher.My rating:7 out of 10.Highly recommended. | positive |
Jim Varney's performances as the Harem Girl and A.U. are amazingly funny--on a level surpassing Chaplin and Keaton. Linda Kash is great in her once-in-a-lifetime role as the hometown waffle waitress longing for adventure. Unfortunately, the remaining 90% of the movie was unwatchably bad due to the atrocious plot. The makers of Ernest Goes to Africa did not rise to the creative challenges inherent in low budget film production. Only worth seeing on cable. | positive |
This review is for the UK DVD three-disc box set. Disc one is called Caught in the Act and contains Model Behavior, Chasing Jamie and Fast and Curious. Disc two is called Bedroom Fantasies and contains Blue Plate Special, Falling in Lust Again and Love Potion No. 10. The final disc is called Anything Goes and contains Chatroom, She's the Boss and Legally Yours. Why the other four episodes in the series are not included is a mystery because there is surely enough room on the discs for a lot more material.<br /><br />Each episode opens with the hotel manager Chloe (Lauren Hayes) reading a letter from a satisfied customer. We then get to see the story unfolding as the guests check into the hotel. Blue Plate Special is the exception because this story is from a waitress. The writers should be given credit for coming up with a good variety of story lines. For instance, Model Behavior is about two models vying for the attention of the photo crew; Falling in Lust Again is about a man and woman who parted and rekindle their love when they meet up again at the hotel; She's the Boss is about a put-upon male secretary/dogsbody who shows that he is more of a man than his female boss realised - much to her pleasure. All the episodes lead up to lots of nudity and sex.<br /><br />It should come as no surprise that all the characters in this hotel are beautiful women and handsome hunks. Even the geeky secretaries get transformed when they remove their spectacles and let their hair down. The sex action is plentiful but to me seems too frantic and false. The camera work could also have done with a bit of moderation, spending too much time close up and so moving about to capture everything, and as usual we get loud music during the sex action. Finally, the end credits mention the Palm Canopy Hotel, Singer Island, Florida although my map of Florida shows no Singer Island. The scenery certainly looks more like Florida than Utah or Las Vegas that some people have mentioned. This is quite a good effort and it is a pity that the second series is still awaiting a UK DVD release. 4 stars. | negative |
Hehehe. This was one of the best funny road movies ever! I laughed so I fell out of the chair. With many Norwegian and foreign celebrities playing themselves. Harald Zwart is the producer, known for films like Agent Cody banks and of course One Night at McCool's.<br /><br />It is about Norwegian crazy fans, going to the world cup in Soccer in Germany 2006. And all sort of crazy fun that comes with it. It was hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. I haven't had so much fun in ages. Rumors say it will come a number two, but I do not know. It will be hard beating this one. <br /><br />recommended to everyone! It is a must see film. I was suppose to see it at the cinema, but I had work at the times it where shown. And been trying to rent it for a month, but all the time rented out. Got it today on DVD. Well worth it. | positive |
When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10 | negative |
I saw this film at the New Festival in New York. It was by far the worst film there. It's use of uncircumcised full frontal nudity and a wishy-washy script and direction that neither commits to a re-make of 'Maurice' nor decides it's a Neil LaBute flick, left me feeling 'Why would anyone ruin a perfectly good cast like this?'. It lacks irony and fills the vacuum with sentiment, which causes the times when the movie turns on itself to make you want to wipe your face as your mind and heart search for what could be going on in the film but isn't. I wish the director and editor had re-edited the film because maybe there's more story there that could be released from an otherwise unpleasant experience. | negative |
Wow -- this movie was really bad! You talk about formulaic, typical movie plot? Watching this movie was like hitting my head repeatedly against a brick wall. The transitions kept trying to be cool but failed. The plot twist at the end, where we find out who the bad guy is was unexpected, but doesn't make much sense until his monologue. Even then... The amount of gore in this movie doesn't help either. Are all of those images necessary? My last complaint is about the plausibility of chunks of the movie. Would the PD really send a lone officer into an unlit warehouse, subway tunnel, or wherever to find a body, when the location of the perp is unknown? And why does the romance at the end just kind of happen all of a sudden? It's like the writer was trying to fit in every Hollywood cliche he could. Don't waste your time seeing this piece of... something. | negative |
This is a comedy/romance movie directed by Andy Tennant, starring Will Smith, Eva Mendes and Kevin James.<br /><br />It is about a professional dating doctor -Will Smith - known as 'Hitch' who helps men to land dates with the women they are interested in. He is currently helping a shapely, clumsy Albert who is obsessed with a very powerful, famous and rich woman called Allegra. At the same time, Hitch has become interested in a gossip columnist, Sara, - Eva Mendes - who has been assigned to write about Allegra. When the best girlfriend of Sara has a love disillusion with a man that Sara thinks that is a client of Hitch, she plots a revenge against Hitch and the misunderstanding leads the two couples to a conflictive situation This film is not one that men should see as it has a lot of male-bashing and both subtle and blatant male-hating. There are also double standards that you would have to be blind not to spot. Hitch and Sara are both very guarded around the opposite sex, Hitch still likes women despite his burns from them in the past and is teaching men to make them happy. But of course Sara, is a sexist bigot who makes frequent sexist comments along the lines of "men want to have sex with anything that walks." Shes self-obsessed and knows she looks like a goddess and knows there are no 'real men' out there. What annoyed me most of all was the 'bad' guy who wanted a quick fumble with Sara's best friend who is the classic example of a defenceless 'victim' and even after being turned down physically by Hitch, receives as blow to the pills from Sara, after which she says "Now I'm satisfied." Add to that the "women are still oppressed" vibes you get from Allegra not being allowed to spend her own money after asking permission from a table of men. In spite of all the rubbish assumptions and generalisations - Women can always tell when you ain't being straight with them? - this movie does have the correct point that in America, love simply doesn't exist. There are some funny parts in this film, such as Albert and his dancing habits but this film overall, only beats the dreadful film Honey by a marginal amount. | negative |
OK, this is one strange film! Fans of Ed Wood Jr. will appreciate the "inventive" techniques director George Barry utilizes, like stock footage and cheesy voice overs. He can make a crack in the wall into a plot device! There is more humor than horror here, but I found it an uneven blend. You will be laughing and crying, and probably wondering why you got your hands on this. Barry explains in the introduction that filming began on this movie in 1972, and was completed in 1977, at a cost of $10,000. That's 59 months and $9,900 too much! If you like your cheese on the campy side, with vintage '70s "gore", you might find this an irresistible and freaky snack. | negative |
This movie is about London and it's an amazing movie. it will be released on DVD in april 2003 and I will buy it when it gets out so If you have not seen it until then BUY IT. The music in the movie is even better (saint etienne) have done the soundtrack. | positive |
When I borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.<br /><br />Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like "Oh no! My Dad is invisible!" or "I wonder what this does?" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.<br /><br />The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?<br /><br />This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.<br /><br />2/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines. | negative |
Imagine what it must have been like for John Agar. One of Hollywood's handsome leading men. Married to Shirley Temple for five years. He finds himself doing movies like this. I remember him in "Tarantula" where he wasn't half bad. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend this film. The monster is dumb uninteresting and incompetent. The police are boring. The teenagers are boring. The plot is stupid. People run around. There are events that do nothing to advance the plot. There's dancing that goes on and on, and then there is no attack. There is some idiotic love triangle that no one could care the least about. It isn't even campy or outrageous. It's just no worth anything. Agar might as well have been a post. He's given nothing to do. | negative |
When it was announced the "King of Pop" was dead at age 50, a month before he was to start a series of live comeback shows at London's O2 Arena, it was a huge shock to millions of people around the world. He was, and will forever be one of the most talented voices and dancers in the music industry, and he will be missed terribly. I decided to remind myself how wonderful he was by watching what is considered by many to be not only Jackson's best video (and possibly song), but the greatest music video ever made, from director John Landis (An American Werewolf in London). The film opens with Michael and his Girl (Ola Ray) having their car breakdown, and after giving her a ring, the moon comes out and he turns into a werewolf. We then see Michael and his Girl watching this horror film in the cinema, she is scared and walks out, and Michael soon follows her, singing the iconic song. Soon enough the voice of Vincent Price comes on, and zombies start crawling out the earth and open coffins from the graveyard, and Michael and the Girl are obviously surrounded. She turns away, and Michael has become a zombie himself, and with all the other creatures they do the iconic dance, before he turns back into his normal self, at least for the chorus. The Girl runs into the near creepy house, blocks the doorway, but zombie Michael still manages to break through, and when he touches her she screams to see normal Michael say "what's the problem?" The film ends with him taking her home, and looking at us with evil eyes. Michael Jackson was number 14 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 6 on The Ultimate Pop Star, the Thriller album was number 4 on The 100 Greatest Albums, and this video was number 71 on The 100 Greatest Scary Moments, and it was number 1 on The 100 Greatest Pop Videos. Very good! | positive |
When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised. <br /><br />I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .<br /><br />I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very much like "Bend it like Beckham", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better. | positive |
When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with unusual intelligence. The other is an "Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal", or "OXCOM". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track them down.<br /><br />Many comments are made about Watchers being very different than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book. Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is (that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork. It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your preconceptions/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read Koontz' novel.<br /><br />So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not excellent. Good enough to earn a "B", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile. Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey.<br /><br />Veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist.<br /><br />The biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the "attack" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and/or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature costume/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9.<br /><br />Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect, if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception. | positive |
Chaplin enters the trenches of WWI in this spirited comedy that never belittles the horrors of war. The rain, the mud, the explosions - all these things are present but Chaplin seems strangely oblivious to them all. He's in France for one thing: to fight the Germans, something he does with unbelievable success.<br /><br />It almost seems like an extended ego trip for Chaplin - a very funny one, at that - until the final minute when it rises to a new level of poignancy and everything makes sense.<br /><br />Perhaps it's what all soldiers dream of before the go to war. | positive |
This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being "feel good" and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.<br /><br />The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away. | negative |
This is quite an unusual and unique little western, that is made mostly original due to its story that revolves around an unique and superior Winchester 1873 rifle and all of those who get to poses it at one point or another in the movie.<br /><br />It's mostly a very entertaining movie to watch but not without still being a real western as well. The movie got done in a typical '40's/'50's style of western genre film-making, so the lovers of the genre should not be turned off by its somewhat unusual main premise.<br /><br />Because the rifle is actually being the main plot device of the movie, it allows the story to follow multiple characters throughout the movie, who are all connected of course and the story makes full circle in the end. Without that this movie would had been a pretty messy one to watch, since the story often jumps from the one hazardous occasion into the other, with constantly different characters involved. Quite amazing how they even managed to put Wyatt Earp in this all. But it's no criticism really. I liked that the movie and its story were being original and how the movie seemed to move from the one event to the other. It gave the movie a bit of a sense of adventure and entertainment.<br /><br />It's also a really great looking movie. I liked the settings the movie used and it seems quite amazing that this was actually the director Anthony Mann's first western. Luckily he would go on to direct more westerns later on, which also often would star James Stewart in the main lead.<br /><br />It was a pretty daring casting choice to pick James Stewart as the main lead. He is one of the softest and most polite looking and acting actors, so casting him as a tough gunslinger seems like a bit of an odd pick. But Stewart is surprisingly convincing as a tough guy and it shows how versatile and really capable as an actor he actually was. <br /><br />It also has some other surprising actors in the movie, that are not often get connected with this genre. Shelley Winters plays the female lead and also later well known actors Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis appear in some small roles.<br /><br />A real western with also plenty of action and entertainment to it.<br /><br />8/10 | positive |
So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to "The Cavern" just in case "WIthIn"s reputation had preceded it.<br /><br />After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.<br /><br />The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.<br /><br />The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.<br /><br />To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.<br /><br />For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.<br /><br />FIN<br /><br />ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.<br /><br />Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?<br /><br />The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars. | negative |
the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie. | negative |
When it opened in London during the Christmas season of 1969 this musical version of James Hilton's famous story was drubbed by the critics. The same reception greeted it when it opened in the US, prompting MGM to withdraw its "Roadshow" status and cut almost all of its songs. What a mistake!!!<br /><br />Watched years later, when the trendy world of the 60's and 70's has turned in upon itself, this version of GOODBYE, MR.CHIPS is a total delight. First of all, as "Chipping", Peter O'Toole gives one of his greatest performances. To watch him turn from the hated, cold, emotionless Latin teacher at a boy's boarding school, to a man who finally can see the colors in the world (after falling for and marrying musical star Catherine Briskit) is to see a genius at work. (If you can, watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, THE LION IN WINTER, MY FAVORITE YEAR and CHIPS back to back over a number of days or weeks. Then you will see what a truly great actor O'Toole is, and how magnificent he is in CHIPS.) <br /><br />Catherine, as played by the glowing Petula Clark, at the height of her popularity, is ever man's dream; beautiful, loving, understanding, with a great voice to boot. Most of the songs are beautiful and fit the story perfectly, while the direction by the late Herbert Ross brings the proceedings wonderfully to life.<br /><br />Okay, this film may be a bit too romantic for some people, but for those who are looking for a beautifully acted, sung, and directed love story, look no further. (If you can get your hands of the laser disc wide screen version, better yet. I am anxiously awaiting CHIPS' debut on DVD.) | positive |
hey ....i really do not know why this film has been appreciated so much,perhaps i missed the point.The way i see it , a lot of international film makers have made brilliant films that have dealt with 'schizophrenia' and have informed ,excited ,shocked,evoked emotion and compelled the audience to step aside from their own reality and think.........while it is true that aparna sen's endeavor was an ambitious one ,in light of all the other movies , this one falls short..... miserably......it was too slow, there were no details about anything and the ending .... was completely ...pointless......it was not open ended or anything ....just pointless.....so watch it if you want to see a good concept completely wasted....... | negative |
GREAT movie and the family will love it!! If kids are bored one day just pop the tape in and you'll be so glad you did!!!<br /><br />~~~Rube<br /><br />i luv raven-s! | positive |
Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."<br /><br />Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?<br /><br />We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.<br /><br />The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.<br /><br />And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.<br /><br />What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.<br /><br />The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.<br /><br />This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty as well. | negative |
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel! | negative |
actually, it was pretty funny... in a "god, how the hell did this movie get made" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking "is this a good movie?" eff off.<br /><br />this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize "this movie might suck".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.<br /><br />this movie is about a writer "ethan poe" hookin up with his cousin "ann".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan "usher", who is supposed to be descendants from the story "the house of usher" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out "nevermore!" this movie should be seen nevermore! | negative |
This film reinvents the term "Spring Breakumentary." Hans, the fat one of the group, displays his talents as this generations Chris Farley. Johnny Kansas, "the King of the $1 bet," shows he's not in Kansas anymore by consistently upping the stakes. Kyle's laugh is truly infecting, and offers a little eye-candy for the ladies as well (as does Matt). The dwarfs, while having their moments, did not do justice to the Mexican hat dance like it deserves. And last, we have our protagonist, Ed. He gives hope to all of us bumbling, stumbling, gangly, pale folk who are still searching for that special someone. And that hope, is a little place called Cabo San Lucas. While this blockbuster just missed the theaters, this is a must rent, as we can all relate to one of these Spring Breakumentarions. | positive |
It's been said that Batman Begins in the first Batman movie to "get it right" but I think that's a horrible overstatement, for I think the new Batman film, although greater that Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, pales compared to Tim Burton's classics, with this one being the best of the five. The darkness is beautiful, as is the music and scenery, creating a Gotham City cloaked in mystery, unlike Batman Begins, where Gotham City is a normal-looking city. The villains are terrific in this movie. You literally can't take your eyes off of the penguin and cat woman. I applaud Tim Burton for being original with his use of the penguin as a freak, rather than an ordinary criminal or a clone of the old Batman TV show. In Batman Begins we have the scarecrow, whose not nearly as demanding on screen as the penguin or cat woman. The film doesn't need to focus only on Batman, because we already know his story, and it is the villains who we are exploring and trying to figure out, and they are the ones who create the plot, with the penguin running for mayor and seeking revenge for his parents' desertion by killing the first born sons of Gotham, a task he fails. Danny Devito gives the finest performance ever by a superhero villain in any film, surpassing even Nicholson's joker. The closing scene where the penguins drag the dead body of the penguin into the water is touching and powerful. It's a tragedy that Tim Burton wasn't allowed to complete his trilogy, since Warner Bros., interesting in marketing appeal, wanted to "lighten" the Batman movies up. And they got their wish...unfortunately. Tim Burton planned on directing the third film, using the Riddler as the villain, with no Two-Face and Robin to mess it up, and I'm sure Michael Keaton would've signed on. So this is the last great Batman Film. Batman Begins is dark, but boring, tedious, ordinary, filled with lackluster villains, and a playboy Bruce Wayne. A decent Batman film, but the best Batman film ever? Never. Batman Returns holds that crown. | positive |
I once heard this movie described as either you'll love it or you'll hate it. From reading some of the other reviews and the ratings, I would venture to say that this is true. I am placing myself in the hate it crowd. I have seen some truly bad movies, boring movies, and even low budget movies. This movie is bad on all three fronts.<br /><br />This Island Earth's Exeter (Jeff Morrow), returns to his sci-fi/b-movie roots as Dr. Les (minus giant head prosthetic). The doctor and his assistant Arnie (George O'Hanlon - aka the voice of George Jetson), along with Les' girlfriend assistant Vera, are tracking a meteor. This is the crux of the cast and is almost a double date. Les has Vera and Arnie has his "Susie" (Synchro Unifying Sinometric Integrating Equitensor - aka the computer). Lets just say the relationship between George and his robotic maid, Rosie, (and his relationship with "Susie") is more believable than the cold, clam-like feelings Vera has for Les (and vice versa). The object of their all their interest is no ordinary meteor, however. It is really an alien art nouveau/art deco energy storage device, which moves around like a 3 legged dog. There is also the little alien "energy" being that controls Dr. Hubbel (aka, the chief scientist there). The alien is obviously and from the get-go, malicious and evil. Is this the kind of science we are handing out? No wonder the aliens from the Explorers were afraid of us. From watching some of these movies, we shoot first. There's no need for questions afterwards. <br /><br />The whole movie is synonymous with watching some really boring science experiments, like boiling an egg or adding food color to celery. Its not the fact that this is a low budget sci-fi movie or thats its a bit cheesy and outdated. It is really, really, really boring. The whole movie is about trying to figure out what is going on. That is it. Most of the things we learn about what's going on are through monologues and self dictation. Now add crappy dialog, cardboard acting and cheap-sets and you have the makings of an Ed Wood clone (by the way, Ed has made some really boring movies as well - please avoid the Orgy of the Dead). The dialog ... oh, the dialog. Jems such as :<br /><br />"..from under 2 miles of ocean ?<br /><br />Why not ?! It came through a billion miles in space."<br /><br />or<br /><br />"Do you think you'll be able to respect a husband who's probably pulled the scientific boner of all time ?"<br /><br />This movie is obviously trying to pull a Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, Magnetic Monster or in the same light as the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone. Namely, a low budget sci-fi movie (or TV episode) that is compelling enough to get past the technical difficulties and strange situations. At the core, these movies are enjoyable on some level (the story, the underlying meaning or the sheer comical nature of the dialog or situations). This movie has none of that. It is just 90 minutes of boredom. I couldn't even enjoy this on a Ed Wood level. I definitely recommend skipping this one and seeing one of the movies I mentioned above instead. It is so bad, that if my name was Dr. Forrester, I would never think of showing this movie to anyone ... except Frank maybe. | negative |
I just saw this film in Santa Barbara. My friend knew someone who worked on it, so i thought i'd check it out. i thought it was a really beautiful film and cant wait to go look at it again. the actors were really good and i loved all the music! there was not a lot of talking in the film, which at first felt a little strange- but once i got into it, i thought that the story and the acting was really emotional and meaningful and thought that it left a lot to the imagination. i want to see the movie again because there was so much going on in it that i forgot a lot of small things, but know that i left the theater thinking about the film. it was shot beautifully and the whole thing was really unique. | positive |
Personally, I absolutely love this movie and novel(I read the book first and decided to see the movie). First of all the plot is truly original and one of a kind. The acting is also great and i love the cast. Judd Crandall (plays Fred Gwynne) fits his role perfectly and really sells it to you. There are also a few corny lines thrown in there (Idk if they were meant to be corny), but they really will lighten up the mood and provide a good laugh. The Maine atmosphere is really a perfect spot to film this movie and it kind of draws you in throughout the movie. Not only will you love it but you'll want to see it again and again, I recommend this 100% to any horror fan!! | positive |
The 08th MS team features two hopeful romantics from different sides of the conflict. Aina, the Zeon officer, and Shiro, the Federal Forces' new pilot, meet in a battle in space, throughout the 12 episode series (and one "movie") the two debate their love for each other while trying to come to grips with the war that surrounds them. It features a Romeo and Juliet romance and unbeatable animation. By far one of the best to hit American Shores. Suit Up! | positive |
You Belong To Me was the final teaming of Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck as a screen team and it was a loan out film for Fonda to Columbia Pictures. Fonda had signed a contract with 20th Century Fox in order to get the Tom Joad part in The Grapes of Wrath. But after that it was usually his loan out films that were good while he was cast in mediocre things at Fox.<br /><br />But the rule was broken here. Though the character he plays bears some superficial resemblance to Charles Pike from The Lady Eve, this film isn't anywhere near as funny. In fact feminists would probably be aghast at it. <br /><br />In fact Barbara Stanwyck herself didn't like it at all. She liked working with Henry Fonda right enough, but thought this film was ridiculous. As well she should have.<br /><br />Fonda is another millionaire playboy, who we would now call a trust fund baby who doesn't really do much with his life. He's sort of lovable lunkhead who meets Stanwyck on a ski slope and literally falls for her trying to show off. Turns out she's a doctor and they have a whirlwind courtship and get married. <br /><br />But it turns out Fonda has a jealous streak, especially when it involves Roger Clark, another millionaire patient of Stanwyck's. And he's not understanding as to her professional obligations.<br /><br />Stanwyck, like Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, was and is a feminist icon. When she tells Fonda that he ought to go out in the working world and live on a salary and see if he can do it, Fonda goes out and gets a job as a salesman in a department store. She's so proud of him, that she actually is going to give up her medical practice and live with him on his salesman's salary.<br /><br />Today NOW would be picketing the film. Stanwyck did not have too much conviction in her performance, probably because she didn't believe any of it. I certainly couldn't. <br /><br />I don't think even back then audiences believed it either. But the two stars and the rest of the cast tried their best, but this one was a Thanksgiving special. | negative |
IN COLD BLOOD is masterfully directed and adapted by Richard Brooks. However, it's also so bent on being realistic, it's sometimes more clinical than entertaining. Recounting the brutal killing of a Midwest family, author Truman Capote focused on minutia, wrapping himself and the reader up in the subject AND subjects! Brooks departs wildly from that approach in favor of something closer to docudrama. Although he films on actual locations, he keeps his distance. The murderers are portrayed as depraved imbeciles, which surely they were. They're not seen as misunderstood souls (as in the Capote book) and the savagery of their act is horrifyingly blunt. Scott Wilson and Robert Blake are excellent as the killers as is the supporting cast, including John Forsythe and Paul Stewart as the reporter (the Capote "character?") The landmark photography is by the great Conrad Hall. | positive |
I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But this
is very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).<br /><br />They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did. <br /><br />There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom when
the door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.<br /><br />See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear. | negative |
It's almost impossible for me to sit down and write a conscientious review of THREE COLORS: RED without letting people in on some of the ideas that Krysztoff Kieszlowski has explored in the previous two entries to this fascinating trilogy. The more I see them and think of them, and imagine myself in their world, the more I get its theme: that we are more linked to each other than we would want to think ourselves, and all it takes is a little hand of fate to set some events in motion. In BLUE, Juliette Binoche played a grieving widow whose plan to live her life without connections to the past had her meet someone unexpected. In WHITE, an act of cruelty spawns an unlikely friendship between two men who will, against the odds, conspire to bring the perpetrator to justice and full circle. And now, in RED, all the elements of fate and apparent coincidence apply themselves into the meeting of a young Genevese model and a retired judge who has a habit of prying into other people's lives.<br /><br />This young girl is appropriately named: Valentine (a luminous Irene Jacob), who has this radiance about her and even smiles openly while working the runway. Not that she is without some baggage: she has a boyfriend, unseen, who also demands to know what she is doing at all times, she has a brother who troubles her, and she rejects the advances of a photographer who is working on her image for a huge billboard. She strikes a dog while driving and nurses her back to health, but when she takes her to the owner, a retired judge (Jean Louis Trintingnant), he does not want her. "I want nothing," he coldly says, and elements of BLUE suddenly reveal themselves as this arrogant man, who also lives in anonymity and apparent, free-floating freedom, conducts surveillance on unsuspecting people. This male version of Juliette Binoche's character at first shocks Valentine -- she states she can only feel pity for him as she walks away in horror, but a chance event has her back at his place, and here is when he begins revealing who he is, and his great loss.<br /><br />At the same time Kieszlowski is unfolding a parallel story: the story of a young man, Auguste (Jean Pierre Lorit), about to become a judge and who lives right across the street from Valentine -- but they keep missing each other. Chance is the word. Like Valentine winning the jackpot at the grocery story she visits, elements of chance pepper her life and Auguste's. He has a girlfriend who also supplies people with telephoned reports about the weather. One of them happens to be the old judge. He knows more about her than Auguste does, and he's never met her. Like God, or Prospero, he is slowly creating a storm which will crack the walls of this present state of conformity and bring a new meaning to the expression "We meet again." It's this parallelism between the old and young judge that makes RED so beautiful and transcendent, because time is, in reality, a lot more fluid than we would like to deem it. There are people whom we meet in life that if only we had been born in similar time frames, so many things would be different.<br /><br />Such is the case with Valentine and the old judge. I believe that there is definitely a strong fraternity of souls tying them together in a tight bond: she is that woman whom he did not meet -- by chance or not -- and is, whether he knows it or not, trying to make amends, hence why he goes to the great risk of revealing his surveillance and becoming the social outcast. But it doesn't end there. One of the many links between the three movies is the character of an old woman walking to a large garbage container. Where Julie did not see her (and would not have helped her anyhow), and Karol fresh from his public humiliation sneers at her thinking, "Someone is worse off than I am," Valentine is the one who helps her. Frailty in need can happen anywhere, and Kieszlowski even applies it here in a minor character.<br /><br />Now, RED is so much more than a story. Valentine, the old judge, Auguste, even Rita the dog: these aren't characters confined by storytelling. An American version would ruin the idea and commercialize chance encounters and even bring forth a dumbed-down ending. RED is so devoid of a linear, defined plot that anything could happen to any of these people and the possibilities that this story could have veered off in so many directions had one crucial element not taken place at the exact moment and place.<br /><br />Adding to the concept of characters who mirror each other despite time frames or location is the theme of sexual betrayal. This is also an important and character defining element in all of the three films: in BLUE, Julie's husband had a mistress and she also betrays Olivier when it's become clear she's emotionally dead. In WHITE, Dominique has Karol listen to her moan over the phone (which becomes an important device in RED) as she has sex with a man while the billboard of Brigite Bardot's CONTEMPT looks on. In RED, the old judge's tale of love and betrayal gets re-enacted. And all this time, Valentine's billboard image looms over them like a presage of what is to come at the same time that Rita, the dog Valentine's car struck, bears seven pups, life renewed for the six major players in this complex trilogy obviously filmed with care and love. Why do I say six? You'll have to watch the movie and wonder. | positive |
An adult, realistic, cruel, dark story, like a second part of "les roseaux savages" (the wild reeds), plenty of beauty and sadness, ellipsis and silences, shadows and little sparks of hope. a man searching for a warm companion, a better life, a sincere attitude. | positive |
I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.<br /><br />"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.<br /><br />The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.<br /><br />Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.<br /><br />The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.<br /><br />And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.<br /><br />Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.<br /><br />But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.<br /><br />In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?<br /><br />This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is! | negative |
Well, no, not really. Its not really a good movie, but its not as bad as I thought it was going to be. I really didn't feel ripped off of my rental money, and sometimes thats all you can ask for. The plot is OK, nothing brilliant or new, the acting is pretty bad, but the cast is pretty. The directing is passable, but the effects are horrible, especially the werewolf effects, which in a werewolf movie, is a pretty big problem. There was a fairly decent amount of nudity, which to me is a pretty good thing, but it wasn't all that hot. All in all, its a fairly average direct to video movie, not the worst film I've ever seen and if you're bored a genre fan, check it out sometime. I'd even watch it again.<br /><br />Bonus fact for horror geeks, Kane Hodder (Jason Vorhees in a few of them) plays the werewolf. | negative |
This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away. | negative |
Somehow, this documentary about Miles manages to include very little music and no complete tunes. Though Miles appears in the film, 95% of the interviews are other folks, not Miles. There are huge chronological gaps, many aspects of his life (his childhood prodigy, his drug addiction) are skipped or glossed over, and you'll learn little about what made the man and his contribution to music so groundbreaking. Skip it. | negative |
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.<br /><br />The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)<br /><br />Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.<br /><br />And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it. | negative |
Don't get me wrong, the guy's a success dynamo, but he got to the top by selling overpriced plastic toys to impulsive brats. So I get a little peeved when he looks at comic book fans as an extension of that same market.<br /><br />See, "The Invincible Iron Man" wouldn't be bad if it were slotted on a Saturday morning and geared exclusively toward undiscerning children. But it's not directed exclusively at children. Periphery characters are killed every five minutes and there's enough bloodshed and semi-nude bodies to make network censors squirm, so it isn't quite cut out for children's television.<br /><br />So what audience is this video aiming for then? It's the audience that enjoys nigh intelligible story lines about reviving a tyrannical Chinese emperor with 5 arcane rings, that's who. And I think that audience is restrictively small.<br /><br />A lot of great writers have passed through Marvel's leathery yoni over the decades. So it's a shame that Marvel would risk their pricey animation investments on so many questionable storytellers and scribes who, like Mr. Arad, are better accustomed to peddling action figures during Saturday morning cartoons. How many lukewarm receptions do Marvel have to endure before they come up with a better strategy? <br /><br />***<br /><br />Animation: just passable cels, some segments are better than others, a low budget look all throughout -- this ain't no Bakshi (Ralph) and it ain't no Bluth (Don)! CG animation's okay, but far from impressive.<br /><br />Story: a litany of clichés, all over the place, convoluted, contrived, and uninspired.<br /><br />Characters: so why is Rhodes even here if all he does is add to Stark's sexual ambiguity? Hmmm... her Dad's in a wheelchair... Tony misses his mom... Asian chicks are hot and, apparently, little else; the female lead is thoroughly objectified by the feature's end.<br /><br />Performances: can't blame competent voice actors for a bad script.<br /><br />Art: very Western musculature, very clean lines, faces are very derivative of Eastern art, very boring mattes, very bland CG.<br /><br />Conclusion: Not great, but worth a watch for the fans and those who enjoy superhero myths. A 'must-buy' for collectors. A valuable "what not to do" course for junior animators. | negative |
Forget the jaded comments that come before these. This is an action packed but sensitive movie about people who overcome real problems in a beautiful setting. Well-acted, even by Elizabeth Berkley. Recommended for anyone who wants to feel something and experience change. | positive |
The plot starts out interesting, however, towards the end too many die in too short a time, turning the thriller-mystery aspect of the story into a slaughter.<br /><br />The only true highlights were Adam Beach and Jürgen Prochnow, who were once again their excellent selves. Nice try with an inappropriate last third, though a good ending. | positive |
Like several other reviewers here, I'm surprised to see many negative reviews on this film. Dan O'Bannon's previous effort was the groundbreaking 'Alien' of 1979. Because it and 'Star Wars' introduced the stylistic approach of 'Used' or 'Dirty Space' in art-direction for these kinds of features doesn't mean that this was the only way to produce them.<br /><br />Rather than dismiss 'Lifeforce' out-of-hand as a sort of schlock and primitive exploitation feature, it's important to recognize that the film draws upon the 'esteemed' traditions of British horror and science-fiction - specifically Hammer and American International features like Quatermass (specifically 'Quatermass and the Pit', 1967), Doctor Who and 'The Day of the Triffids' (1963), if not the works of Gerry Anderson ('UFO', 'Space:1999' and 'Thunderbirds'). But none of these influences would be a surprise if other reviewers recognized writer O'Bannon's genre-scholarly appreciation for 'Queen of Blood'(1966) and 'It! The Terror from Beyond Space'(1958) - the immediate sources for 'Alien' (1979).<br /><br />Granted this film has some 'legacy' elements, but perhaps it's worth comparing this film to its more immediate peers - 1981's 'An American Werewolf in London' and 'The Company of Wolves' (1984) - other 80's films that share a 'looking-back' while they adapt those stories to the 80's zeitgeist. All three films drew on earlier incarnations of the same, but substantially sexed-up their themes (because they could), and, at the same time they recognized the tongue-in-cheek, humorous aspects of their projects.<br /><br />Neil Jordan's 'Wolves' played to many of the psychoanalytic memes floating around at the during the '80's, while 'American Werewolf' curdled its theme as a 'coming-of-age' film. It's called artistic license, and the adaptations of these three films are no less valid than the latter-day dramedy inherent in the 'Scream' franchise, 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' and 'Final Destination'. But these teen-targeted, films seem to be part of a box-office trend, whereas the 80's films like 'Lifeforce' belong a canon of British sci-fi - even if this one was written by an American.<br /><br />In many ways this film holds up much better than latter-day disaster and alien-invasion flicks ('Independence Day', 'Armageddon', 'Deep Impact') in that the 'solutions' don't reside in gun-battles, weaponized payloads and testosterone. At the opposite end of the pole, it is unfortunate that Steven Soderbergh and James Cameron didn't examine Tarkowski and Lem more closely before they remade 'Solaris'...<br /><br />The goal of this film was fun, not ponderousness or stupidity.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
Facts about National Lampoon Goes to the Movies, a.k.a. National Lampoon's Movie Madness:<br /><br />1. The movie is poor, even by Lampoon's typical standards. 2. It's not funny. 3. No one goes to see a movie.<br /><br />So, after I finished watching it, I began wondering why on earth it's called 'National Lampoon Goes to the Movies,' and why it was ever conceived, much less actually made. It would be like calling Austin Powers 'An American Guy Goes to the Movies.' How lame. He isn't American, and he doesn't go to movies. None of the characters in Lampoon's so-called 'satire' are funny, and none go see movies, which causes a bit of a problem. I had hoped it would be something in the vein of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but it isn't.<br /><br />This was National Lampoon's first film after Animal House, although you couldn't tell it from the quality of film. Poorly developed, rough and amateurish by any standard, it induces headaches not a good sign for an 89-minute movie that seems double the length.<br /><br />I've noticed a pattern. Really bad movies are typically renamed and this little disaster falls under that category. It has two separate titles -- probably to help try and promote it to people too stupid to remember how bad a panning it received from home video critics in 1982/83. 'Hmm, Movie Madness I've never heard of this movie before! Let's rent it!' And then, the realization: 'Hey, wait a minute, this is just National Lampoon Goes to the Movies!'<br /><br />It was shelved by MGM/UA, never to be released into theaters or DVD; it occasionally pops up on television a few times per decade, which is just about the only place you'll manage to find it.<br /><br />It's split up into three stories a parody of self-enlargement videos, butter and corporate ruthlessness, and police brutality/cop-buddy films (I guess). The first segment stars Peter Riegert (Animal House) as a frustrated guy who divorces his wife and does some other stuff. I'm not sure what because it was so boring my mind started to drift. Until the sex scene popped up.<br /><br />Part II is about an exotic dancer raped by a stick of butter (don't ask) who decides to become Queen of the Margarine so she can cut off the supply of dairy products. Ouch! This contains the only funny line in the movie: 'Only I can make love with my son!' If you think that doesn't sound very funny, you're right it's not. And just imagine it's the highlight of this film!<br /><br />Part III is about a cop who chases down a serial killer (Christopher Lloyd) only to lose his nerve and shoot the guy. It does contain one funny scene but it's extremely over-acted only Lloyd really exhibits any humor, playing his character dry and compassionate, yet strangely surreal. The part where he's choking his victim and the meek cop stands by watching it all unfold, at least, evoked a chuckle or two.<br /><br />It's a shame to watch such a cast of semi-famous names resort to low standards. The writers of each segment clearly believe that they're being very ironic and clever by spoofing so-called stereotypes the fault being that the movie becomes one huge contradiction, favoring the standard T & A instead of plot; crude humor instead of witty dialogue; desperate performances instead of inspired ones. It's easy to see that none of the actors were enthralled with the material, muttering their lines, often so embarrassed they can seldom make eye contact with the camera.<br /><br />The movie isn't funny, as I said before. I laughed once, at only one line, and even then it was a halfhearted one. Two chuckles, a smile, and a very weak laugh. Compared to Movie Madness, a number of other decent comedies seem like regular laugh tracks.<br /><br />I like National Lampoon's Vacation series (or, at least three of four installments), and their classic Animal House, but their recent slew of direct-to-video bombs such as Golf Punks (with that great comic genius Tom Arnold) provide a good example of why their magazine went out of print more than a decade ago. It gets really old, really fast.<br /><br />Sad to see a new film, called Gold Diggers, is being released with their 'stamp of approval.' It's like condemning a film before it even hits theaters maybe they should start not advertising their name all over the place
<br /><br />Distributor: 'This movie is bad. It gets the National Lampoon stamp of approval. That'll teach you not to make something so awful next time.'<br /><br />Forget the death penalty. Just stick a bunch of criminals in a room and make them watch this over and over every day for a month.<br /><br />It's so bad that I can't even begin to explain its putrid vileness. I give up. | negative |
I guess this would be a great movie for a true believer in organized Christian Dogma, but for anyone with an open mind who believes in free will, rational thinking, the separation of Church & State and GOOD Science Fiction it is a terrible joke!<br /><br />There are some well known actors who were either badly in need of work or had a need to share their personal beliefs with the rest of us heathens.<br /><br />I WAS entertained by this movie in the same way I was entertained by "Reefer Madness." That movie attempted to teach drug education by scare tactics the same way this movie tries to teach "Christian" principles with the threat of hell and misery for otherwise good people who don't share their interpretations of our world.<br /><br />It had me howling with laughter and at the same time scared me to realize how many people actually believe that our society should revert to the good old days of the 19th century! | negative |
I watched this movie last night, i'm a huge fan of the book, and i was pretty happy with the version in which Winona Ryder and Susan Sarandon starred. But this one, it's just awful. Oh my God, i don't understand how they dared to ripped apart this classic story and made the characters totally different, starting with the switching of Beth being the younger sister, and making Amy the 3rd one. And Jo interpretation, terrible, Jo was a feminist, intelligent and kinda angry young lady, and the actress portraying Jo in this movie acts like a foolish and very annoying little girl. And what's with the Laurie going to war?. i'm OK with the fact that when a book is made into a movie there has to be some changes made, but not re-write the whole story. very very bad done. | negative |
The fact that this film was shown at London's Barbican suggests to me that the print must have been acceptable enough for such a showing. Now the question is, Why isn't this long lost and important film available in DVD (or even VHS)? A large number of persons in Europe and the USA have for many years hoped to see this film, if for no other reason than the wonderful music written for it by Sergei Prokofiev. What does one have to do to get such a wonderful production as this available for a wider public, not just patrons to the Barbican at London? Having been a devoted listener to Prokofiev's music for many years and aware of this film, PLEASE, someone 'out there' do the right thing and bring it out as a DVD. | positive |
**Warning - this review may contain spoilers ** <br /><br />The idea behind the character of Danny (Jet Li) is a good one - young boy is taken by hoodlum and raised to behave like a vicious pitbull, controlled mainly by whether his collar is on or off his neck.<br /><br />However, the writer did not know how to deliver this idea within the constraints of believability.<br /><br />He has Danny meeting a blind pianist, Sam (Morgan Freeman), who has to be the most trusting fool a man ever was - along with his nit-wit, endlessly babbling, rather unattractive step-daughter, Victoria (Kerry Condon). I was stunned, by the way, when I learned Victoria was supposed to be 18 - she looked 25 or 30 to me.<br /><br />Amazingly there is no romance between Danny and Victoria.<br /><br />When Danny turns up again, wounded, what does Sam do but take him straight home. Danny is out for 2 days, but do these nit-wits take him to a hospital? Nooooo. I don't know if they even called in a doctor.<br /><br />Now Danny is obviously not a mentally stable person, this is apparent from the get-go, yet Sam takes him into his home, where both he and his step-daughter could have been seriously harmed or even killed by this rather strange, young man.<br /><br />Why Morgan Freeman took this insipid role in this asinine film I can't even begin to guess. Surely Mr. Freeman is not that desperate for a paycheck.<br /><br />Then we have Bob Hoskins as Bart, the gangster who "owns" Danny - now you talk about a son of a gun that's hard to kill. The car Bart is in gets riddled with bullets that would have rivaled Bonnie and Clyde's demise. We think he's dead, but no.<br /><br />Then we have another car accident - and yet again, ol' Bart escapes unscathed.<br /><br />In addition to that, we also have Danny fighting half a dozen tough guys at a time, plus a scene where Danny has decided he doesn't want to fight any more. I don't care how much a person doesn't want to fight, when it is down to the wire of you fight or you die, I think anyone would fight.<br /><br />As I said in the subject heading - this film is about 40 miles outside the boundary of reality as we have come to know it. It's not just a case of suspending belief - it's completely beyond that.<br /><br />Furthermore I never did understand why Danny's mother who turns out to be a nice lady, rather than the prostitute Bart claimed she is, became mixed up with Bart and his gang and got shot. Maybe that was my fault, I got distracted right about the time that scene came on--but it seemed highly unlikely she and Bart would have ever crossed paths.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10 - and that's being generous. | negative |
A sweet-natured young mountain man with a sad past (Henry Thomas) comes upon an abandoned baby girl in the woods and instantly falls in love with her. The town elders generally support him in keeping the child, though a local temptress (Cara Seymour) thinks little of the new family. A determined little girl on a long walk and a sinister travelling salesman (David Strathairn at his creepiest) have parallel stories which converge in a fateful way. This is a charming slice-of-life in the Ozarks in the same vein as "Where The Lillies Bloom" & "The Dollmaker". All three were shot on location in those beautiful hills and cover the lives of simple-living -- but not simple-minded -- American folk. A minimum of strong language and brief but pointed violence make this fairly-safe family viewing. | positive |
<br /><br />Filmed just after the war, this story was made in order to highlight Anglo-American relations after the war. It ended up receiving the honour of being the first Royal Premiere after WWII.<br /><br />Remarkably the film tangles together the Royal Air Force, Sigmund Freud Psychology, the Founding fathers of America and various others up the long stairs (special effects in its infancy) and beyond the heavenly gates without losing any of its integrity. <br /><br />Although sounding absurd, this clever script leads and dances the viewer between heaven and earth with the skill of a mountain goat and a presents a charming ease rarely matched in cinema since. <br /><br />Be prepared to have your heart warmed by this sweet, innocent and charming love story. Roger Livesey acts like a man possessed to steal the show!!!! <br /><br />British Cinema should cry when it remembers how good it used to be in those early post war years.<br /><br /> | positive |
This Tim Burton remake of the original "Planet of the Apes" from 1968 (and starring Charleton Heston) is a far, far cry from the quality and plot of the original.<br /><br />Certainly special effects have improved since 1968, but writing has not. The characters were boring and the dialog was awful. I sat through the entire film with a friend (who thankfully only rented it) and completely understood why, before Christmas, all of the "Planet of the Apes" toys at Target were in the clearance bin.<br /><br />My advice to Tim Burton: don't put this on your resume.<br /><br />My advice to everyone else: watch the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" movie. | negative |
OK, let's see... a handsome young stranger is new in town, and walks around on the local boardwalk. He meets a pretty girl, meets up with the obnoxious leader of the local hip young vampires club, is dared by them to follow them into this cave, gets into a conflict over the pretty girl, an epic fight ensues...<br /><br />No, it's not Lost Boys, although you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference, since I think even some of the carnival music is the same. (Do you have to pay royalties for sampling a movie?) Even the ending of this stinkbomb is ripped off from Lost Boys. The make-up is below par, even for a low-budget thriller, the characters are one-dimensional, and just exactly how many "Oh, I had this horrible experience" scenes of teen angst does one movie need? The humor is flat and stupid, and everything else is sadly predictable. Yawn.<br /><br />The only scary thing about this turkey is the promise (threat) of a sequel, an idea that hopefully every distributor in the country will drive a stake through. | negative |
When you read the comment on this film, that it's smart and funny political comedy based on true events - the only true word here is that it's a comedy. If you're told it's insider movie about Russian politics - it's not. There's probably only 2% in the movie from what really happened in Russia during that election-campaign. In reality of the 1996 it was thousand times more interesting to follow the situation and that was a real funky election-campaign. Well, there were PR-advisers from the US working in the Yeltsin's staff, but their role was just minimal. The whole campaign was totally different from what is shown in the movie, it would be much funnier showing all the president's people riding across the country with paper boxes full of cash, and the celebrities giving the shows to support Yeltsin all over the place - at least that would be true. I give it three only because of the respect to Jeff Goldblum, Antony LaPagglia, and Liev Schreiber. And about the machine guns on the streets of Moscow. I was living in the place that had the highest amount of hard crime in Russia in the middle of 90-s and never seen a man with the gun on the street. | negative |
And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go! | negative |
Six degrees had me hooked. I looked forward to it coming on and was totally disappointed when Men in Trees replaced it's time spot. I thought it was just on hiatus and would be back early in 2007. What happened? All my friends were really surprised it ended. We could relate to the characters who had real problems. We talked about each episode and had our favorite characters. There wasn't anybody on the show I didn't like and felt the acting was superb. I alway like seeing programs being taped in cities where you can identify the local areas. I for one would like to protest the canceling of this show and ask you to bring it back and give it another chance. Give it a good time slot, don't keep moving it from this day to that day and advertise it so people will know it is on. | positive |
Finally a gangster Movie worth watching!<br /><br />Jennifer Tily should get nominated for her role as tough murdering femme fatal!<br /><br />This Movie flies like a bird , just a fast paced non stop Gangster Mayhem!<br /><br />Jennifer Tily is just so beautiful and bad in this Movie.<br /><br />I was shocked to find Faye Dunaway still lives! The cast in this movie are so fitted to their roles. <br /><br />A real cool soundtrack rides along side and you get swept into the Spanish soul of this film.<br /><br />The story is original deep and poetic.<br /><br />This Flick has a lot of Substance and never rests.<br /><br />The gang of Spanish Fire just set everything on screen alight.<br /><br />Damian Chapa Is a Joy to watch and a Movie Star.<br /><br />Sit back and enjoy the ride. | positive |
Most folks might say that if one were to spend a Saturday night watching a movie,you must be really bored. Actually,I had just gotten back home from being out and turned on the TV and there it was,"Paulie". <br /><br />I had missed the opening credits,so I didn't know the name of it but I saw that it had Cheech Marin in it,so I naturally thought I had tuned into "Born In East L.A." When I saw him talking to a talking parrot,I was ready to dismiss this as the kind of flop movie they show late in the night.<br /><br />Happy to say,it was better than that. As you know,if you don't already Paulie is lost and trying to get back to his original owner. Seems it's taken years to find her. What should be Paulie's advantage is actually a dis-advantage in ways. People come across a literate parrot and all they see is a way to make money or benefit themselves. <br /><br />While Cheech Marin's character "is" making money from him,he's not mean to him. The dance sequences with the parrots are something kids will find cute,I found them amusing.<br /><br />Paulie,who's naive',learns quickly that not all humans are nice people. Especially the owner of an animal research lab. The man lies to him saying he'll help him find his owner as long as he helps in his animal communications research. Paulie is now stuck but decides to make a fool out of the man at a demonstration to others of Paulie's vocal ability.<br /><br />Throughout the film Paulie's telling his story to the facilities janitor who ends up freeing him,several other animals and finding the location of Paulie's owner. It's a touching reunion. <br /><br />8 out of 10,the wing clipping scene should have been assumed and not shown. That part might bother younger children. Otherwise,it's a great movie for older kids and adults who are a kid at heart. (END) | positive |
Why this film was only released in 4 states is beyond me. I thought this film was a divine story. The name says it all: Seeing Other People. This movie has more logic than laughs, which I suppose is why it works so well. Common sense also makes an appearance in what would seem to be another puerile sex comedy. Alice is getting her feet frozen in the cold, when she feels irrationally about the way she might perform for her fiancé, not just sexually, but as a partner, and friend etc. This starts what seems to be an almost archetypal journey for the both of them. One fling after another leads to trouble, as if it wasn't a bad idea from the start. Witty dialogue and comic set-ups make this one funny as hell! Nicholson and Mohr set the tone of the film early on, and keep the promise they anticipate. Other highlights are Lauren Graham, Andy Richter, and Helen Slater(in her first theatrical film in 10 years!). Climax begins to take an insane turn, but a simple ending makes this one far more enjoyable than most movies today. Mohr fans will see something different in his Ed character, and fans of Helen Slater will enjoy her shiny moments of a quick, but excellent come-back. Any Richter takes home the award for most moralistic character. Romantic and funny, or just plain fun. Seeing Other People is a gem, which needs to be noticed. | positive |
This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.<br /><br />Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!! | negative |
It's one of the best movies that I have seen this year ! I don't agree with the person who said it's boring. Of course some people may find this movie not frightening at all, but personally I spent a very good moment. This movie alterns very well sex scenes with frightening scenes. There is also a nice touch of humor. For example when the wife tells her husband that in her childhood she was abused by her father, and then her husband says "how can someone abuse someone like you", and then he attempts to attach her on the bed for sexual games :D Very funny ! I recommend this movie to everyone, and by the way, sorry for my poor English (I'm from France). | positive |
Winchester '73 was the film that moved Mann from the b-movies to the big league, rescuing James Stewart's floundering post-war career in the process by casting him as a conflicted hero (although since he inherited the project from Fritz Lang, maybe Lang deserves the credit for that). Both men would go to much darker places - Mann with the remarkably bleak Devil's Doorway, which remained shelved by MGM until the success of Broken Arrow convinced them to release it but a movie about a man hunting down his own brother as the rifle of the title is handed from person to person along the trail before it ends up in one of the director's beloved mountainside shootouts is still stronger meat than you'd expect from the studio system. Great dialogue, an impressive supporting cast Dan Duryea, Will Geer, Millard Mitchell, Stephen McNally, Shelley Winters, Charles Drake, Tim McIntire, Jay C. Flippen, Tony Curtis, Rock Hudson among them and Mann's outstanding visual sense raise the bar with this one. | positive |
I saw virtually no redeeming qualities in this movie. The only thing I did see was Quentin Tarantino's seeming insane obsession for it... There were some attractive women in this movie and perhaps that is one decent quality. Overall however, I found this movie surrealistic and ridiculous. The hand held film making coupled with slow motion and other cinematic gimmicks I found clumsy and dizzying, even sickening. Overall the music throughout was horrible and repetitive to the extreme as well reminding me of psychological warfare of the U.S. military against various malcontents.<br /><br />The various vignettes that made up the movie are haphazard in their placement and unfulfilling and unresolved in their content and "conclusions." A depressing movie (not a true _film_, a term I reserve for true art) that left me with a bad feeling. Do not believe the various people that try and spin this as a "romantic comedy" though there are certainly isolated elements of both this movie repudiates in content, form, and conclusion any association with this genre.<br /><br />I suggest staying far away notwithstanding the seemingly overwhelming positive views of IMDb and other ratings sources. | negative |
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.<br /><br />As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale. | negative |
I like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.<br /><br />The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price. | negative |
This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk. | negative |
Well, if you set aside the fact that this movie features abysmal acting; and, if you set aside the fact that the story is muddled and wanders off in about five different directions without ever deciding which way it really wants to go; and, if you set aside the fact that I didn't find a single scene in this movie that was remotely interesting; well, if you set all that aside, this is still a REALLY terrible movie!<br /><br />I take it that this is supposed to be a love story about rich guy/poor girl. I never really understood for a moment how this romance between Kelley (Chris Klein) and Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) ever got started. The inexplicable romance is made worse by a complete lack of chemistry between Klein and Sobieski. The screenplay (by Michael Seitzman) is dull to the point of stupefying. How Seitzman managed to write the thing without falling asleep is a miracle; that he would think anyone would want to pay to see this is unbelievable.<br /><br />Did I mention that this is a REALLY, REALLY terrible movie?<br /><br />I'd give it a ZERO, but the IMDb doesn't provide for votes of ZERO. So I give it a one while holding my nose. | negative |
Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay. | negative |
Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.<br /><br />The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.<br /><br />There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the "daughter" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her "dad".<br /><br />That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent "PokeMon; the First Movie". | negative |
In Moscow, the young couple Veronika (T. Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) are in deep love for each other. With the World War II, Boris volunteers to join the army and is sent to the front on the day before Veronika's birthday, and they do not have the chance to say goodbye to each other. While waiting for news from Boris, Veronika is raped by Boris' cousin Mark (A. Shvorin) and they marry each other. However, Veronika does not forget Boris, and keeps waiting for him.<br /><br />"Letyat zhuravli" is an impressive and heartbreaking romance in times of war. The direction is excellent and uses ellipses along the story, inclusive in the capital scene when Veronika is raped by Mark. The camera-work is amazing, with sophisticated planes and angles, and long traveling. The scenes of Veronika in the middle of the tanks, or in the train station with many figurants are awesome. The magnificent cinematography is highlighted by the restored image of the DVD. T. Samojlova has an extremely beautiful face, and a touching and sensitive performance. The speech in the last scene makes another great example of an anti-war movie. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Quando Voam as Cegonhas" ("When Fly the Stork") | positive |
Think of an extremely low-rent version of "Heathers," and you've got "Pep Squad." That sums up the flick in a nutshell. I must give credit where credit's due, though. The film has a nice visual appeal to it. I liked the cinematography, I liked the wild color schemes, I liked the costume designs. But without good acting, a film has no redeeming value. I'd rather watch a film with little visual appeal, with good actors and sharp dialogue (i.e.: "The Brothers McMullen" or any Edward Burns film). The actors either recite their dialogue in monotones or scream it out like they're in a bad soap opera. This is why I don't badmouth most mainstream actors. Let's face it, most actors who are mainstream are mainstream for a reason. If they're not "great" actors, they're at least competent. People badmouth Leo DiCaprio, but when was the last time you saw a movie where he recites the dialogue as if he's reading it off the page? It's a shame, because the director seems like he knows his stuff when it comes to mis en scene (sp). At the same time I can't totally praise Steve Balderson (the director). He did write the screenplay, which contains some horrible dialogue. He might be slightly racist too, since there's a black principal in the movie, who inhabits a culmination of African-American stereotypes. | negative |
My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away? | negative |
To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.<br /><br />"When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.<br /><br />How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.<br /><br />I guess it's too much work to do good editing.<br /><br />Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time. | negative |
Medellin is a fabulous place to live, work, and study. I've been there twice, and never did I hear anything about guerrilla activities, paramilitaries taking tourists hostage, or anything of the sort. There are "invisible police," but it is *not* a Big Brother system. There are just enough police so that they are visible in everyday life, but they do not hassle someone without good reasons.<br /><br />La Sierra is an interesting documentary in that the youths it depicts in the movie essentially become its characters. The directors of the movie carefully carve out plot lines among the daily actions of the inhabitants of La Sierra, and when a "character" dies, there is genuine pathos. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the three youths are all members of the Bloque Metro, a gang that used to terrorize La Sierra before the Colombian government began to restructure the country.<br /><br />La Sierra is not an accurate depiction of life in Colombia; there are, of course, things to be wary of such as petty crime, but when one considers pickpocketing happens in "modern" cities such as London, New York, or Tokyo, Colombia doesn't seem that different after all. Colombians are eagerly awaiting their chance to show to the world that the once war-torn country is now prospering more than ever. | negative |
I have read the short story by Norman Maclean, and the movie did justice to Norman Maclean's writing. My husband tends to reread it occasionally, and I myself have read it over and scenes of the movie keeps coming to mind. We have videos of many of Redford s movies and we have watched "A River runs through it" many times. Redford is part of the "famdamily" as he is always around. We never get tired of Redford's perception of Norman Maclean writings, and the beauty of Montana. The script reminds me very much of my own upbringing as my father had the same calling as Mr. Maclean's father. According to "A River Runs Through It," "Methodists are Baptists who can read," a line which by the way is not in the short story, but I think that is a funny line! My husband and I are well-read Baptists!<br /><br />I have heard a movie critic state that the pace of this movie is too slow. I disagree. As one search for inner peace, this is the type of movie that will make you contemplate the beauty of nature in three/four rhythm of the metronome. The photography is outstanding! The acting is great. I love the scene where Norman and Paul as boys talked and wondered whether one could be a fly fisher or a boxer! Then as adult Paul played by Brad Pitt (Se7ven) is the "perfect guy" who needs help with his alcoholism but will not accept it. The same applies to Neal Burns, who uses worms as bait, he also needed help but would not accept the fact that he needed help. The scene where Paul refuses to eat oatmeal and the entire family has to wait an eternity to say grace! Finally after hours, they all kneel around the table to say: "Grace!" and they all leave. But the oatmeal stayed on the plate! That scene where the two love birds and their tattoos on their posteriors! That is funny! The sunburn! The drive back home where Jessie Burns (Emily Lloyd) decides to go via the train line! Beautiful dialogue when Norman proposes to Jessie because he wants her to come to Chicago with him!<br /><br />Redford himself does a superb job as a narrator. I could not stop myself from comparing Brad to the young Redford (Barefoot in the Park). The nominated Director, Producer, Actor, is a visionary who deserves to be praised for his advancement not only in the cinema in the US but around the world. I am glad to live in nineteen hundred because I have seen the beginning of the black and white television, the movies and all the technology and special effects, to be able to watch videos at home and to live in the same century as Redford because I have had the chance to see his works. Redford needs no special effects to show us the beauty of Montana in this masterpiece. The river to me means that line that separates life from death, memories and realities. Redford shows the hands of the Creator so magnificently and a river runs through it. | positive |
This is actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful. | negative |
Giallo fans, seek out this rare film. It is well written, and full of all sorts of the usual low lifes that populate these films. I don't want to give anything away, so I wont even say anything about the plot. The whole movie creates a very bizarre atmosphere, and you don't know what to expect or who to suspect. Recommended! The only place I've seen to get this film in english is from European Trash Cinema, for $15. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.