review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I thought this movie was fun. I have never really watched old movies before and this one was a really great first date film. It had warmth and heart and spirit. Was kind of cheesy but in today's film industry, cheesy is cute. I gave it a ten and I highly suggest renting, buying or seeing the movie anyway you can. Gene Kelly was very dreamy and a little bit sarcastic and you knew the character thought that he was gonna have it all. The female lead was cast perfect because their two personalities had spark and you wanted to hold on and see what would happen. The grandma in the movie was priceless. The perfect addition to a great old movie. I love the fact it was black and white and Gene Kelly is so sweet with all the kids in the movie that you can't help liking him. See It. | positive |
"Secret Sunshine" reminded me of "The Rapture" (1991), with Mimi Rogers and David Duchovny, but this Korean production is a better film. It portrays super-religious Korean Christians in a provincial Korean city, and the main character's experiences interacting with them in the wake of a horrible personal tragedy. Shin-ae is a widowed single mother who moves to the city of Milyang ('Secret Sunshine' in Chinese) from Seoul with her young son. She has chosen Milyang because her late husband (killed in an auto accident) was born there, and she feels she needs to make a new start in life in a new place. She does not react well to the overtures of the local Christian zealots, one of whose members tries to convince her to come to their church and prayer meetings. Shin-ae is essentially irreligious and brushes these people off as politely as she can. In fact, she brushes just about everyone in Milyang off to begin with, but some of them are persistent in trying to invade her world, and the consequences are often hilarious. To say more would be to give the film away, but it should be noted that the performance of the woman in the lead role (Jeon Do-yeon) is stupendous. Having read that she won the Best Actress award at Cannes in 2007, I expected her to a decent job. But Ms. Jeon is captivating and it is impossible to take your eyes off her when she is on screen. The movie is a sort of harrowing Evelyn Waugh-esquire piece of work, showing how Fate can feel insane as much as strangely inevitable. | positive |
This movie possesses something most other movies of its genre do not: intelligence and good messages. Accepted, is the story of a kid named Bartleby (Justin Long) who gets rejected by every college he applies to. His parents are incredibly strict, frustrated and disappointed. So, Bartleby and a few other students who face similar problems start a fake college, to pawn themselves off to their parents as college kids. Not everything goes to plan, and the movie is about them winging it. But behind this plot which sounds ridiculous, there are good messages, morals and a new outlook on the American educational system. The college they create "South Harmon Institute of Technology" accepts those who did not get accepted anywhere else. The message is that you do not need "money, tradition, or fancy books- you just need a desire to better yourself." they are a completely unorthodox school, but what the movie teaches is that thats still OK- and different (whether its a person or a school) is not necessarily bad, and that every one no matter should be given the chance to better themselves- despite whether they are 'weird.' its a message of non-comformity and has traces of anti-authority sprinkled in as well. But not only are messages great- its hilarious! haha i laughed very hard. the humor can be subtle but can also be blatant as well, and is a great mix. Fraternities beware. | positive |
Just a dumb old movie. First Stanwyck's son gets his foot trapped in a really dumb way, and then her husband gets his foot trapped in another really dumb way. In an effort to save him, Stanwyck gets unlucky, yet again, and comes across an escaped convict. She has a chance to kill him but fails in a very dumb way. In the end her husband is saved, and Stanwyck tells us through narration what the dumb message of the movie is. All's well than ends dumb.<br /><br />I could never figure out how an unattractive woman like Stanwyck ever made it as a leading lady in Hollywood's glamour-oriented Golden Era; that nose is so beautiful
So photogenic
The film is mercifully short, running a little over an hour. It's as though the director sensed that he was making crap, so he thought it best to keep the crap short. | negative |
This version of Mansfield Park, while being extremely accurate to the novel lacked the compassion I felt for Fanny which is crucial and central to this Jane Austen story. This was due to the total lack of acting ability by the actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. She had no appeal and at times appeared to be either lost in space or out of her depth. The scene she has with her uncle where she breaks down in hysterics was hysterical. She badly overplayed that crucial scene and I actually felt sorry that Henry Crawford ever cared for her.<br /><br />The polar opposite is the portrayal of Mary Crawford by Jackie Smith- Wood. What a wonderful actress, in a very difficult part to make that character witty and self-centered, selfish yet vulnerable to love.<br /><br />I have always loved Fanny. She is mild mannered but with an implacable sense of what is right, and who she thinks is worthy of respect and admiration. The Fanny in this adaptation is too meek and subservient with hardly a thought of her own until near the end of the series. As much as I wanted to like this Fanny....I just could not. <br /><br />I suggest skipping this version of Mansfield Park for the real thing...the Novel. Fanny will not disappoint...you will Love Her! | negative |
I chose this movie really for my husband-who works in radio broadcasting. I thought that it would be more of a movie that he would enjoy and relate too, though it was from the eighties-so it was a little dated. This movie really draws you in. At times you just want to strangle the host, Barry. At times you just want to send some of the bigots who call in to a true concentration camp. At times you really feel sorry for Barry, because he has truly gotten too big for his jeans if you know what I mean. It was on the Drama channel on Encore-so I am thinking this is a true story. If you truly love dramas you will love this, even if you don't know all the ins and outs of the broadcasting business. If you are an Alec Baldwin fan and are watching it to see him, you shouldn't. His part is really a bit part in this movie. | positive |
I just viewed this great good-natured parody of Night of the Living Dead, and I have to say it was so awful and so corny it was excellent. This movie incorporated all the antics and scenery shots that the original had including the cemetery, the supposable abandoned house, the basement and the front lawn. What I especially love about this movie is the comical use of bread and all the common household enemies bread has a grudge against. C'mon, we know that toasters, toaster ovens and zip-locks have done bread in a dozen times and now we must call for their help in order to defeat the reanimated bread. Aside from the cheap acting and voice-overs, this short horror film is my personal favorite parody of Night of the Living Dead, even better than Night of the Living Dead of 1990.<br /><br />I think what makes this movie worth watching is how the writers and directors utilized all the dialogue from the original movie and revolved it around bread, including how the bread became reanimated and to avoid leftovers because they are especially dangerous. Another great reason why I love this movie is that, there is no exception as to what bread is evil, bagels are evil and even communions are evil, which is demonstrated by a hilarious scene involving a newscaster and a rather monotone priest. I think that the actors are especially humorous performing the deed of being viscously attacked by slices of bread (i.e. the car scene). I think the end is very worth sticking around.<br /><br />Even though this is a short and that "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" is debatably another great parody, it's still recommend as a great horror parody done by, what seems to be college filmmakers. I highly recommend this movie to anybody who is able to make fun of Night of the Living Dead and still have respect for the filmmakers. I would also like to recommend this movie to anybody who loves D-movies and horror parody's, it's just a wonderful little short horror film that's fun to watch and learn. | positive |
In Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's "Strangers On A Train", Guy Haines (Farley Granger)and Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker)meet for the first time on a train journey and discuss the idea of carrying out two murders. The rather pushy Anthony suggests that he could murder Haines' unfaithful wife and Haines could murder Anthony's domineering father. The lack of any connection between the murderer and the victim in each case should ensure that both crimes would remain unsolved. The tenor of the conversation leaves the more easy going Haines with the impression that the proposal is not entirely serious. Complications arise later when Anthony murders Haines' wife in an amusement park and then pursues Haines to keep his side of the bargain.<br /><br />The differences between the two men are clear from the start. Haines is a professional tennis player, respectable and rather modest about his achievements whereas Anthony's life is going nowhere and he admits to having been thrown out of three colleges for drinking and gambling. Haines is in a relationship with a Senator's daughter who he wants to marry. Anthony characteristically interprets this as a cynical manoeuvre on Haines' part to provide himself with a shortcut to a career. The character differences are also reinforced visually. Anthony often inhabits shadowed areas and travels in a boat called "Pluto" whereas Haines is frequently seen from the more heroic perspective provided by low camera angles.<br /><br />There are some striking visual sequences such as:- <br /><br />(1) The murder of Haines' wife which is shown through the reflection of her glasses which fall to the ground as she struggles to free herself from Anthony.<br /><br />(2) The depiction of Anthony alone, dressed in black and looking very small against the enormous white Jefferson Memorial building.<br /><br />(3) The occasion where all the spectators at a tennis match are moving their heads in unison, following the action, whilst one head (Anthony's) chillingly remains fixed in a position looking at Haines.<br /><br />(4)The scene where the roundabout goes wildly out of control and eventually crashes spectacularly.<br /><br />Frequent use is made of "doubles" throughout the story, for example, Haines and Anthony are originally introduced as 2 pairs of feet getting out of their taxis and going to the train. As the train pulls out of the station, there are 2 sets of tracks each providing a choice of 2 ways forward. The 2 men discuss the murders of 2 potential victims and order 2 double whiskies. The Hitchcock cameo sees him struggling on board the train carrying a double bass. Haines feels double crossed when his wife reneges on an agreement they had for her to see a lawyer to arrange a divorce. Haines' wife goes to the amusement park with 2 boyfriends. When Anthony confronts her before the murder he lights his cigarette lighter and produces 2 reflections in her glasses. Anthony later becomes very disconcerted when he meets the Senator's younger daughter who he sees as a double for Haines' wife. Anthony also feels double crossed when Haines refuses to go ahead with the second murder. When Haines is travelling alone in a train going to Metcalf, he sees 2 men in the same carriage accidentally kicking their feet together in the same way that he and Anthony had.<br /><br />The action throughout the movie proceeds at a great pace and the performances of Robert Walker and Patricia Hitchcock (as the Senator's younger daughter) are particularly powerful. | positive |
Was this supposed to be a comedy? The black cape and skeleton mask are hilarious. There is like zero plot. The movie starts out with an archaeologist and his assistant. They make a small mention of their dig site being cursed. And then, lo and behold......in drops Halloween Costume Man, dressed in the shiny black cape, with a skeleton mask face, holding an axe. So, he kills off these two people. Then we cut to the woods with a bad imitation of Predator, only the commandos are being hunted down by Halloween Costume Man who is now riding a horse! More commandos show up, but these people are supposed to be disguised as a hiking group. Yeah, production probably ran out of commando costumes. Can you say, low budget? Anyway, they come upon a lone old Indian guy sitting in the woods. He's just too funny. And he starts babbling about something, but you really don't know what he's mumbling about, so they flashback to some Indians getting killed. None of it really makes sense. And then we go back to our commandos where more of them get killed. And that's really basically the plot. It's so laughably bad, you just can't really look away because you want to see just how low it sinks. You could make the same movie with a camcorder, a Halloween Costume and a bunch of your friends with fake guns. Don't see this thing if you want a horror movie. If you want a comedy, maybe? Or just skip it and get something like the real Predator. | negative |
Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all! <br /><br />Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!<br /><br />The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.<br /><br />There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do. | negative |
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.<br /><br />Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.<br /><br />The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.<br /><br />The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.<br /><br />The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.<br /><br />Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma. | negative |
Yes, it was an awful movie, but there was a song near the beginning of the movie, I think, called "I got a Woody" or something to that effect. I would love to find a sound track of that if there is one available. I saw this song on MST 3K, and as awful as it was, it had it's moments, and that song was one of them.<br /><br />If you like babes in bikinis, this is the movie for you, but if you don't, then don't bother. It was great material for MST 3K, I have to admit though. I would really love to know where to get a copy of the soundtrack though. Not just that song, but a couple more were really funny, and are classics as far as I'm concerned. | negative |
I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him "That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen." I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)<br /><br />I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.<br /><br />There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.<br /><br />I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.<br /><br />DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as "the white guy", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.<br /><br />Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars. | negative |
The title of the film seems quite appropriate given the persona of the lead character, Fanda. He's an older man living in the late autumn of his life, yet frolics about as a jubilant school boy who's just entered a spring meadow. The frailties of old age and the warning signs of death are all illusions to him. His wife supports this idea when she observes, "Fanda laughs at funerals and death." In other words, death is not something Fanda takes too seriously; he has more important things to do than worry about what already is inevitable. Life, however, and the pursuit of living life to its fullest, is the philosophy that governs Fanda's existence. He is not one to merely exist, but must live for each day and each passing moment, for tomorrow is not guaranteed. <br /><br />The film seems to make a strong commentary about living as though there is no tomorrow, let alone death. Too many people take life much too seriously and consequently miss out on the actual living part of life. Fanda's wife for example; she's so worried about preparing for death, not in some religiously connotative way, but in a far too practical, even lifeless way that she forgets how to smile, laugh and just have a good time. Her humanity seems to have transformed into zombie auto-pilot mode. Fanda, to the contrary, is perhaps too blithe and absent-minded for his own good. He needs a person like his wife, Emilie, to help balance him. <br /><br />It's as though Fanda possesses the invincible spirit of a child, like a kid trapped in an older man's body. He is introduced as the adventurous type; he pretends to be people he's not in order to get gain, squanders money, factiously lies and is always up for a good laugh. Deep-down, though, he is a kind-hearted and gentle old man who wishes to be submissive to his overly pragmatic wife. The two off-set each other quite nicely, though neither one of them truly appreciates the binary quality of their relationship until they metaphorically chance upon death: meaning, their divorce. It is during this courtroom scene that Fanda realizes the reality of death and what it means if he is separated from his only love. His wife emotionally recalls all of his flaws, yet is tenderly drawn to continue to love him despite his crazy behavior. In this moment of her forgiving him, Fanda realizes his selfish behavior of driving his wife bonkers and makes an internal commitment to make her happy. <br /><br />Ironically, though, after making this commitment he becomes what his wife later calls, "a living corpse." The life-blood within him drains away as he becomes more like hera zombie going through day-to-day motions. He doesn't seem to live anymore, but exist. For example, he gives up his zany pranks, doesn't squander money, quits smoking on account of his wife (not his health), and overall, just acquiesces to whatever she wants of him. Succinctly put, he changes on account of wanting to make her happy. Thus, the binary quality of their relationship begins to slowly vanish. Realizing that her husband is not who he used to be, there is a part of Emilie that misses the old Fanda. She misses her husband's aloofness and the fights they used to have, because it was in those moments that they were truly living, not just simply existing. <br /><br />I believe the filmmakers were trying to get across a specific message here; that true and loving relationships will not always be easy or convenient, but often times will take sacrifice and endurance to wade through the seemingly bad times. The possibility of death at any moment is what reminds people to live for every moment. Life is often taken for granted, but when threatened with deathbe it literal or figurativepeople awake from their ungrateful slumbers and are aroused to start living life to its fullest. It's as though they are scared that they'll never live again, so they better make the most of it while they have it. Fanda and Emilie had been married 44 years with fights along the way, but it wasn't till they were both threatened with the possibility of death-like-separation that they began to show their true colors. As the old maxim goes, "Love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." They both begin to see what matters most in life and that is the people they meet along the way. More importantly, the intimate relationships they make with their significant others. | positive |
The only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.<br /><br />the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the "Sweeney " theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.<br /><br />the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.<br /><br />When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here | negative |
Wow, alot of reviews for the Devils Experiment are here. Wonderful. My name is Steve and I run Unearthed Films. We just started releasing the Guinea Pig films on DVD for North America. Now before you ask why am I writing a review? Instead ask why some people bash it. I'm writing this review because I love the Guinea Pig films. Why do I love em, it's because they go for the throat and they don't let go. I've seen it all. Almost every horror film known to man, Argento, Fulci, Bava, Buttgereit. from every underground cult sensation to every Hollywood blockbuster. I've seen it all and the films that have stuck in my head over the years was definitely the Guinea Pig films. Why because it doesn't try to hide the reason why we watch horror movies in the 1st place. This review is for the Devils Experiment. I find it devoid of story which is fine by me. Why do I watch horror films? So I can see blood and gore and the torture of people. The Devils Experiment not only delivers but that's all it is. Pure unadulterated violence. Yeah I like a story but sometimes I just want the gore and the Devils Experiment delivers ten fold. Why do people bash it. Cause they like a story, so that the torture and death of a person can be hidden behind a story. It make em feel better about themselves. We all want blood and gore. It's just really hard to justify it if it's not wrapped around a story. The Guinea Pig films have a historical meaning to them and they have created a definitive splash whenever they have been released.<br /><br />I'm thrilled to be able to release one of the most famous horror series in the world. Maybe I shouldn't have written this review but then again maybe I should. My view is biased cause were releasing them but then again it's not. I've always told people to find them and to watch them way before I started Unearthed Films. Sure it's exploitive and over the top but isn't that why we watch horror films in the 1st place. The Devils Experiment is NOT for everybody. It's for thrill seekers and gorehounds only. If you think Jason movies and Freddy Krueger movies are awesome then stick to those. But if your on the next level and have seen it all then the Devils Experiment is for you. There is a reason why they haven't been released for over 17 years. They are wrong, disgusting and down right freaky and not something to watch with your mom, unless she is totally cool. Good luck, enjoy and never stop living your life. | positive |
I did and I lost two and a half hours of my life that I can never regain again.<br /><br />I honestly have no idea what the critics and fans see in this movie. And that's not because I can't appreciate "art". I love a good film with profound messages, brilliant cinematography, and great directing.<br /><br />This film just isn't one of them.<br /><br />My main complaint about this film is that it's so horribly slow-paced, to the point of boring its audience to death. On the other hand, sequences of dialog go by too quickly and there's not enough exposition to let people who haven't read the book know what's going on (My mother had mercy on me and explained everything before I watched it). Would it have killed them to hire a narrator? At least for the beginning and the end? <br /><br />Let me break it down for you: (Spoilers throughout) <br /><br />For the first two minutes you are treated to a black screen with no music, waiting for the actual movie to begin.<br /><br />For the following minute and a half, you see several pictures of sunrises and savanna landscapes. Like the audience couldn't figure out how to set the scene unless they saw the establishing shot three or four times.<br /><br />The next eleven minutes are occupied with the grunting monkeys. They fight, see the monolith, fight some more, pommel things with a bone. Supposedly they are prehistoric men whose evolution is being influenced by the monolith's singing. Not that you could tell if you hadn't read the book.<br /><br />*Finally* we get into space. Only to be subjected to twelve minutes of ships slowly spinning to the Blue Danube Waltz (A pretty quick-tempo-ed waltz as I understand, yet here it feels absolutely agonizing). At last we get some innocuous dialog and rather cryptic exposition about the government not letting people land on the moon. We are left to wonder about this for fourteen more minutes of Blue Danube and spinning ships and neat camera tricks with anti-gravity.<br /><br />Next comes four minutes of watching a ship travel over the surface of the moon and dock at a space station. We get a little more exposition in a board room scene that follows. Then we're back outside traveling at a snail's pace over the moon. A second monolith is revealed, again filling our ears with that horrible ringing (I had no idea that was an actual piece of music!). The monolith does its little light show and then the plot jumps forward.<br /><br />*Seven* minutes of watching the ship to Jupiter travel. By this point in time my brains had turned into mush. Could it be moving any slower? Maybe it's "realistic" to portray it as such, but we still don't need to see five or six different shots of the same thing to grasp the concept of its "realism". Let me tell you about this "realism" thing; I cheered when the secondary astronaut character died. Not because I'm a sadist and like watching people die, but because after five minutes I was just so annoyed at the sound of his darn breathing! I'm supposed to care about this character, feel when he dies! Instead I found myself waiting for blissful silence whatever way it came.<br /><br />Anyway, now we get to the most interesting part of the film-the part with HAL. Forget Dave the stick-of-wood protagonist. The real star of the show is that coldly impersonal, chillingly villainous, ruthlessly merciless bad guy of a computer. He's great. And the "Open the pod bay doors" sequence is wonderful. But it's too short. And it's not long before the director once again lapses into too-long goings on.<br /><br />Four minutes for HAL to die. And die he does. Slowly, painfully, losing intelligence with every minute, voice getting lower and slower, singing "Daisy, Daisy", all with a low and constant hissing that becomes just as annoying as the heavy breathing.<br /><br />Seven minutes of flying colors as Dave enters the monolith. Seven. I could FEEL my brains melting and dripping out of my ears! Seven full minutes of absolutely nothing but some guy's whacked out psychedelic version of space travel, again with that thrice-cursed chorus! We got the idea at the beginning of the sequence! Why drag it out so long? Unless he wanted to make LSD users go psychotic and have flashbacks.<br /><br />I'm not even going to try to explain the ending, mostly because I don't quite get it myself. Supposedly he's in an alien research laboratory and they're teaching him deep and profound things while he watches himself getting older and older and then they send him back to earth as some kind of cosmic celestial space baby. None of this comes across in the film. For all you know, it's just a sequence of images with no purpose or plot whatsoever. A lot of the movie felt that way.<br /><br />The first time I tried watching this movie I gave up halfway through. The second time I suffered through this sore excuse for a film, it was to help my sister time the sequences to see how long they lasted. It's that boring.<br /><br />Call this crummy film "art" if you wish. I wouldn't. I've seen more interesting "art" in the local museum. And I am never subjecting myself to this kind of suffering ever again. | negative |
John Sayles, what have you done?<br /><br />"Silver City" had moments in which I could see the glimmering hope of a good story, well-drawn characters, thought provoking dialog. And then those moments would quickly be covered over by layers of poor writing, clumsy direction, and abysmal acting. I truly love almost all of John Sayles' work, but "Silver City" is ghastly.<br /><br />I got the feeling that Sayles may have been working on the beginnings of a good story involving the illegal labor and industrial corruption plot lines, but then he got rushed and stuck the secondary plot line satirizing the Bush administration onto it. The two stories don't really connect with each other, and the weaker elements of the political theme dominate the first 3/4 of the movie, causing me to lose patience with the whole affair.<br /><br />The other major flaw is Danny Huston's acting. His dialog in every scene is delivered with a gawping grin, regardless of its appropriateness to the mood. I hated this guy by the end of the film, having been reminded of every bad actor in every high school play I've ever seen. Not having seen Huston in anything else, I don't know whether to blame him or to blame Sayles' direction of him more. Regardless, he's the unfortunate focal point of a very unfortunate movie.<br /><br />Right down to the last sledgehammer-subtle final scene I was disappointed by "Silver City." Sayles at his best, or heck, even Sayles at mediocre, can be so very much better than this film. See ANY of his other works instead. This isn't even worth a rental. | negative |
There are movies that are so bad, they're good. Then there's movies like Rest Stop that should just never have been made because they are just plain dreadful.<br /><br />Bad acting, unlikable characters, predictable plot and a supposedly supernatural twist that adds nothing to the story are all key failures. Some half decent special effects are about the only thing worthy of note. <br /><br />I can't even bring myself to write a plot outline because all I really want to do here is warn you not to waste your time and money on this movie. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother with this film at all. It's 1.5 hours of your life that you will never get back. <br /><br />1/10 | negative |
Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.<br /><br />There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.<br /><br />I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.<br /><br />My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.<br /><br />Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend". | negative |
Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars. | negative |
I have seen several comments here about Brando using a Southern accent, some of which felt it was a mistake. When this movie was made, racism and discrimination were very strong in the South. The Jim Crow laws were still in effect. Civil Rights was in it's infancy. Could this have possibly been a subtle social commentary, a Southern man in love with a woman of another race? The same way MASH was a subtle criticism of the Viet Nam war? Any thoughts?<br /><br />Another comment was made about Myoshi Umeki appearing "cold". Anyone who has been in Japan would understand. The Japanese people, at least in my experience, did not tend to show emotion in front of strangers. There were strict social rules, especially for men meeting single women. Americans in Japan were totally foreign to this culture, and the blunt attempts to meet women were shocking to the ladies. One trait of the Japanese was to smile when embarrassed or uncomfortable, which many American servicemen took as a sign that their advances were welcomed. Also remember that at the time represented in the movie, Japan had just been defeated, and the occupying forces were treated with reluctant acceptance. I think Myoshi Umeki gave a very credible performance of what her situation would have been. Watching her interaction with the American actors brought back several memories of my own experiences in the country. I was able to meet a pair of lovely young ladies who, after I convinced them I was not the typical American male, taught me their language and their culture during my time in their country. | positive |
I appear to be in the minority, but I thought "Radio" was pretty awful. It seemed to contain almost every cliche in these types of "heartwarming" movies.<br /><br />The motivation for the characters falling in love with Radio was never really explained. We were just supposed to accept that everyone was fond of Radio except for a couple of bad apples.<br /><br />You could see almost all of th big moments in the story from 100 yards away. When the movie wanted you to go "Awww" or pull out your tissue, I was rolling my eyes and wished I was watching "Rudy" instead.<br /><br />There were some good performances by the cast. Too bad they weren't given a better movie in wish to appear. | negative |
I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says "I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made. | negative |
When I first heard about Moon Child, I thought it was a joke. After a few months, I figured I guess it's for real. The few reviews I read that WEREN'T made by squealing fangirls were not very promising.<br /><br />When I was given the opportunity to watch it, I was fully prepared to groan, wince, and otherwise need to close my eyes to avoid the silliness.<br /><br />I was more than a little surprised, and in a good way.<br /><br />Yes, Moon Child has its moments of cheese, camp, and general dorkiness -- I think that's kind of impossible to avoid when it involves Gackt Camui, a man not known for his sanity -- but all in all, it was wholly enjoyable.<br /><br />No, it is not a work of cinema genius but it is very, very heartfelt, amusing, with fun choreography, a touching score, and a fun cast. I know little of Japanese cinema so I can't really judge the acting but considering the fact that the cast was speaking a language or extreme dialect foreign to them at one time or another and that a couple of them have almost no acting experience, I was rather impressed.<br /><br />If you can enjoy a good action movie, a good drama, a good comedy, see this film. At least rent it since it's coming to Region 1.<br /><br />On a side note, there is zero homosexual/homoerotic content in this film. I didn't even see much of a subtext. Don't let people that read too much into things ruin this for you. | positive |
Without saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.<br /><br />One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else. | negative |
This belongs in their top tier, although there were others, such as Micro-Phonies and Punch Drunks, that were more deserving of Oscar nominations than this one. But if nothing else, the recurring loudspeaker announcement, "Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard," followed by Curly's "Woo woo woo woo," makes this a classic on two levels. First, it symbolizes all that the Stooges represent; my daughter loves to repeat the announcement when she is in the middle of doing something silly. Second, the absurdity of these three as physicians in a hospital; I imagine the terror I would feel if I were a real patient in a real hospital and heard this announcement over the loudspeaker. Throughout this short, you hear that announcement and you know that something horrible is about to happen, and the loudspeaker voice stays with you for months afterward. | positive |
Albert Pyun delivers a very good action/drama about a junkie who tries to rip-off a big crime-lord. A lot of style and many very cool actors. Burt Reynold is excellent. | positive |
Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.<br /><br />There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...<br /><br />For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why ! | negative |
This movie is based on the novel Island of dr. Moreau By H.G. Wells. It's a fairly good one too, it's at least better than the version by John Frankenheimer. | positive |
An interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear. | negative |
And one only, in my opinion.<br /><br />That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.<br /><br />Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.<br /><br />Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton. | negative |
The 14 year-old in me is immensely happy that they're now able to make really good looking fantasy movies, and that they're all the rage, what with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia making loads of cash at the box office. This year will see (and already has seen) several more, most notably The Golden Compass, which has the most exciting trailer I've seen this year. Stardust, based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, showed up in theaters this week with little more than a peep. I saw no previews for it, only a couple of commercials. The critical reaction is kind of blah. I wouldn't even have seen it if not for the fact that I have to wait on a friend to see The Bourne Ultimatum, and that nothing else interesting opened this weekend. Well, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, the stars must have been rightly aligned, because I went to see Stardust, and I loved it. It's not a huge movie like Lord of the Rings. The plot line is your very basic fantasy quest (the hero sets out to look for a fallen star) filled with obstacles. But within that basic outline, the story is lively and imaginative. It's simply aiming to be a lot of fun, and a charming little romance. And it succeeds wonderfully. There were a lot of big films this summer, but none of them were nearly as fun as this one. There's a lot going on, but the story is told well and is almost entirely coherent. It isn't a masterpiece, but it definitely can occupy the same kind of ground that something like The Princess Bride has (though I don't like it quite as much as the earlier film). A lot of fun to be had here if you're a fan of the genre. | positive |
I happened upon this by chance. I was at my friends house and he had just started watching it, so I sat down thinking we would shoot the breeze whilst this was playing in the background. However, within seconds I was immersed in this docu-drama, and we both spent the rest of the time completely focused on this and not saying a word to each other. <br /><br />I never knew the tale of the the first solo around the world yacht race, let alone the tragic events of one man's attempt against the odds, which set out to be his redemption for all of his misfortunes in life, but ultimately ends up becoming an example of them. Having not known of the story, I did watch this with the same fervor as I imagine those who were reading about the race at the time it actually was happening, engulfed in what was taking place and eager for more information, hoping the lone amateur was going to pull it off against the odds and beat the pro's, which makes the shocking twists of the story all the more tragic, I felt like I was living the story.<br /><br />The story is told with great care, and the interviewees have clearly had time to reflect on the tragedy, which gives great insights, but is also contrasted nicely by the archive footage of interviews at the time of the tragedy, the recordings and photographs of the lone sailors is also excellently used, and the insights into the minds of the sailors and how solitude was affecting them was superb.<br /><br />I'm shocked that this story isn't more widely known or has been turned into a movie, but also thankful. Thankful that we have this drama-documentary to tell the tale from those who knew the man, instead of some wishy-washy movie adaptation, and thankful that I caught this gem of a film by pure chance. <br /><br />It's a must see, whether you like documentaries or not. | positive |
Many people judge it as a fan service film because a lot of super star starring in this movie (Gackt, Hyde, and Wang Lee Hom is very famous singer in Japan). But don't judge it before you watch, is what I say. Gackt and staff are very serious when made this film, and they worked so hard. It's a good film with a touchy story inside. Several scenes can be so fun and some others are so sad. They made it so good until I can't stop watching this all over again. <br /><br />The story has written pretty well but I admit that their act are little disappointing. This is especially for Hyde because his skill of acting is under from the other and it is weird to hear the way when he speaks with other language except his native language (Japan). But, it's comprehensibility because this is their first time to act in the movie.<br /><br />I think Gackt trying to show us about how someone can be so weak when they lose the most important person in their life. When Toshi was killed, when Sho asked Kei to turn Yi-Che to being vampire like him because he won't let her die, When Sho's Brother died, Kei Shoot Son die, and the best and beautiful scene is When Sho pass away~ even I told that Hyde's skill is still weird but I give him two thumps up at that scene!!<br /><br />There's a time where The plot goes too fast like they didn't tell the reason Why Son can join the local mafia and being Sho's enemy because they are a good friend at the past and also Son is Sho's brother in law.<br /><br />Whatever, I love this movie~ (very much ^^). <br /><br />This is an action movie with a touching beautiful story. | positive |
The summer has been so full of Blockbusters and comebacks of films, and not to mention some of the disappointments of those comebacks, that I was woe to find a film I could just sit down and enjoy. <br /><br />In case you don't want to read further down the page (there aren't any spoilers), I'll sum it up here: It's more mature than Ella Enchanted (there are some questionably violent parts, plenty of death, and a handful of scenes with a little blood, not for small children), but doesn't try to be overly corny or overstep its bounds. Think of it as a bit more serious, bit more magical Princess Bride, and you'll be close. <br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I am, perhaps, not as prodigious a movie goer as others... Maybe once or twice a month, if I feel active. I'm also a huge Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan. I get bored of remade repetitive story lines and films with more flash than filling faster than you can count to 10, and this film is the diamond in the rough.<br /><br />By the end here (August), I was tired enough of fractured expectations from the big hits that I averted seeing Bourne Ultimatum in favor of Stardust. Having had my hopes thoroughly muddied by Transformers for my Fiction addiction, the previews of Stardust seemed appealing, but I was certainly wary.<br /><br />As many others here, I was utterly surprised. I had gone in thinking to see another generic fantasy movie clichéd from here to breakfast. Don't be fooled, it is most definitely a fairy-tale, and it does indeed have witches, magic, and utterly requires suspension of disbelief... But the most refreshing thing I found, is that it's NOT based on anything I've seen or read in the past 15 years, and it's actually a really good movie.<br /><br />((Unlike 90% of the other movies which seem to persistently re-appear like thorns in a side, perhaps a sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas? I could read a book this year, and in two years the movie would be out as another "Epic fantasy tale, the likes of LotR and the rest" so says the NYT and such and such no doubt.))<br /><br />Stardust didn't have me bolted to my seat because of jam-packed action at every turn, nor was I sweating bullets because of plot-hook after plot-hook threatening to tear the dramatic tension apart and echo throughout the theater in a loud boom. It didn't even use enormous blasts of sound to grab my attention to what's happening on screen (Transformers, I'm looking at you). It's not trying to show off the latest CGI techniques, nor did it offend my intelligence with dimwitted dialogs and story lines that are simple enough I could've figured them out in 3rd grade (boy I hate those). <br /><br />I just... watched. Watched, and enjoyed a refreshingly CREATIVE storyline unfold before my eyes. Sure, I may have known what was going to happen throughout most of the film, but it makes you forget that. It even made my heart twinge at some parts, but the most important aspect I noticed is that I left the theater feeling better than when I'd gone in.<br /><br />It truly is a gem. After so much slush this summer with so many remakes and films that fell short of my expectations, this was like a cold sweet cup of tea to cap off all the hard work I'd done sitting through the others trying to come out of them with my money's worth.<br /><br />It's probably not for everyone, but do yourself a favor; If you enjoy fantasy films that stand the test of time alone (Princess Bride, Black Cauldron, The Dark Crystal, etc.) then you should really see this movie. This little diamond is finding its way into my DVD collection the moment it hits stores, you can trust me on this.<br /><br />Simply wonderful. | positive |
I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.<br /><br />The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.<br /><br />In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".<br /><br />Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel. <br /><br />Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.<br /><br />And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.<br /><br />Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.<br /><br />Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more. | negative |
Eager electronics whiz Brian Foster (a likable performance by Wesley Eure of TV's "Land of the Lost") creates a computerized watchdog called C.H.O.M.P.S. (an acronym for Canine Home Protection System) for his boss Mr. Ralph Norton (nicely played by Conrad Baain), whose home security business is floundering. A rival company hires a pair of inept criminals to get their grubby hands on C.H.O.M.P.S.; said task proves to be easier said than done. Director Don Chaffey relates the endearingly dopey story at a constant brisk pace, maintains an amiably silly and lighthearted tone throughout, and stages the goofy slapstick gags with considerable flair. Moreover, the game cast mug it up with infectious aplomb: the adorable Valerie Bertinelli as Brian's sweet fiancé Casey Norton, Chuck McCann as klutzy crook Brooks, Red Buttons as McCann's equally bumbling partner Bracken, Jim Backus as evil CEO Mr. Gibbs, Hermoine Baddeley as nice old biddy Ms. Foster, and 60's AIP exploitation feature regular Larry Bishop as smarmy, duplicitous suit Ken Sharp. Best of all, the titular pooch is a cuddly delight: C.H.O.M.P.S. jumps through fences, walls and windows with amazing agility, performs acts of exceptional strength, runs faster than a deer, and even does a few nifty martial arts moves. A subplot about a hulking neighborhood hound named Monster supplies a few extra belly laughs (Monster is voiced by some uncredited guy with an appropriately deep, growly voice). The groovy animated opening credits sequence, Charles F. Wheeler's glossy cinematography, and Hoyt Curtin's funky, pulsating disco score are all solid as well. A cute little kiddie flick. | positive |
This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.<br /><br />And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.<br /><br />My recommendation: don't bother! | negative |
***BIG SPOILERS!*** "Flesh Feast" of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's "Mountain Of The Cannibal God" and Dal Tenney's "I Eat Your Skin". What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. "Flesh Feast" is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it. | negative |
Admittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.<br /><br />The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.<br /><br />On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors. | negative |
I bought the DVD of Before Sunset and saw it for the first time a week ago. Having saw it twice, I couldn't help but missing Before Sunrise, not because the sequel was not as great, but I felt that these two movies completed each other like no other sequels ever did, every time I finished watching one of them, I feel the need and yearning to see the other. So, I ended up spending the weeks watching both of them repeatedly, I will be quite embarrassed to mention how many times exactly. The most remarkable thing about Before Sunrise is how you feel the development of the feelings of their characters towards each other. It sounds so simple, the growing of the chemistry, I think other romantic films might think that they succeed to track the development, but to me - who doesn't believe in Nora Ephron - Before Sunrise is the first film to really gives the viewers chance to feel it. When I saw it for the first time, about 8 year ago when I was 20, I already liked it. But, I didn't rate it as a "great film", it still seemed to me like another thinking persons' feel good movie, Linklater was too smart to make it more realistic, it was 10 minutes too long, the characters was too well fabricated, I thought I liked it because it was like a dream and because I enjoyed their conversations, etc. etc.. But now, thanks to Before Sunset, I feel that's more to Before Sunrise than what I felt for it before. I saw the elements more clearly: Jesse, Celine, Vienna, their conversations, everything. How each of them are separated element by itself, and they have a chance to mix, the story is just a frame of time, I am no longer feel manipulated. And the freedom that every scene has, as well as its refusal to be overly efficient, how blind I was that those qualities didn't strike me as exceptional when I first saw it! Now, 8 year have passed, the more movies I've seen, the more I realize that many movies are just collections of ordered scenes that only exist for the sake of its ending, even movies like Pulp Fiction or Linklaters's own Slackers included. The Jesse and Celine tale avoid that, maybe Before Sunset is a better example in this case, but Before Sunrise is also one of few films that its ending is just a consequence of time, not a destination, every single scene has its own life. I don't know whether Linklater or anyone else had a sequel in mind when they made Before Sunrise, but to me, one of the most amazing things about these sequels are how these two films visually contrast each other. Before Sunrise which I think employs more static angels and brighter color schemes, seems to try to capture the smallest atoms of liveliness surrounding Jesse and Celine, the world is always full of hope whether or not the characters feel it. Meanwhile, I enter the vision of boredom as Jesse stuck talking to the journalists in Before Sunset, and Celine's first smile from behind the shelves are the most heartbreaking smile I've seen in a beginning of a film, and the many moving shots after that takes me to a place I don't know with a sadness in me, no matter how beautiful Paris is, and no matter how happy I am that they meet again. I'm sorry that I go on this long with my limited English, Before Sunrise is already an extraordinary film without me pouring my scattered thoughts, and it gets even better with an equally great sequel following it. | positive |
Years ago, with "Ray of Light," Madonna broke through to a truly amazing level of musical artistry, and since then she's occasionally transcended even her own standards. This concert production, with its hypnotic editing, amazing dancing, hallucinatory lighting effects, and trance-inducing arrangements, blows away all previous efforts. Madonna's apparent ambition -- to single-handedly bring about world peace through music and dance -- may seem hubristic or absurd to some. But hell, somebody's got to do it! Thanks to her assemblage of the remarkable talent of everyone involved in this production, "Confessions Tour Live from London" places her once again among the top ten artists working anywhere in the world in any medium. | positive |
This was a great 1981 film which had a great story about three men and two girls who go on a camping trip together and go through thick woods and high mountains with a great water fall. This group of people run into property owned by George Kennedy, (Roy McLean) who plays the role as a Forest Ranger and rides a white horse. Roy McLean warns these young people that where they are going is no area for camping and they should turn back. Of course these young people pay no attention and proceed to have a ball swimming in the nude near the water fall and playing great music and dancing by the fire and having plenty of beer and wine. There is an old wooden one room school house that draws the gals and guys inside and it is from that point on the film starts to get very scary. There is one occasion when a young girl has to climb a tree in order to get away from a human beast who desires her body and starts chopping the tree down in order to capture her. Don't miss this film, there is plenty of everything. | positive |
This film is one of the few quality films of 2000 and definitely one of my best. The scenario is based on the novel by Vladimir Nabokov and the transfer to the big screen is absolutely brilliant. <br /><br />The photography of the film is excellent as is the acting of both Turturro and Watson. Turturro definitely gives his best performance to date proving he's worth much more than what we thought. Watson also performs brilliantly.<br /><br />The story is about a phenomenal chess player (Turturro) which is also extremely eccentric in his everyday life. The film is presented in a non linear time, with multiple flashbacks of Luzhin's childhood. Through those, the complex character of Luzhin is described. <br /><br />I have nothing more to say, but to suggest this film to anyone. | positive |
This movie has more goofs than any other movie I have seen in my life. The special effects are damned terrible. For instance, near the end, when the Concorde is falling after the cargo door tears off, the thing spins like a toy. The special effects of Airport (1970) are way better than this crap. Also, the force of a Concorde opening up at altitude and speed would essentially turn the thing inside-out. (That is if it would even open at all) But the movie has its good points. Mostly when it ends. That's also cheesy. E.g. The Thing lands on a bank of loosely-packed snow, if it did that, it would splinter into a million pieces. Overall, 2 out of 10. Instant flop. Great laugh flick. | negative |
There are a number of reviews that comment on the cast of this film. Suffice it to say that Alex Cord plays a strong lead opposite Robert Ryan and Arthur Kennedy. What concerns me is that many of you may not be aware of the (at least) two existing versions of this film. In the U.S. version Clay McCord gains amnesty from Governor Lem Carter and then rides out of town redeemed. I agree that ending is less than satisfying. However, in the original Italian cut Clay McCord rides out of town (weaponless as he has turned in his pistols to the Governor) and is bushwhacked by the bounty hunters that have been slowly depopulating the bandit town of Escondido. The Bounty Killers are excited at the prospect of splitting the $10,000 reward but are disappointed to find McCord's amnesty agreement in the corpses pocket. As they ride away one is heard to comment,"If this amnesty keeps up I'm gonna start hunting buffalo !" . This alone takes A Minute To Pray...A Second To Die and places it on an even playing field with movies like Keoma and The Big Gundown. As the end credits say in the Italian cut "FINE". | positive |
This is not a serious film, and does not pretend to be, but it is not as bad as some of its reviews, it's title, and the first ten minutes lead you to expect.<br /><br />The plot is very silly, but this adds to the light-hearted fun and enthusiasm which runs through the film. The characters are played sympathetically, and while they do engage in typical teenage angst, they generally avoid the sickly sentimentality usually to be found in this film genre.<br /><br />Unusually set in London, sympathetic to geeks, this is well worth a watch if it happens to be on; if you want some tongue-in-cheek silliness, and don't mind suspending your disbelief. | positive |
As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion. | positive |
This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie is another trash bin waste. So many people have hyped up these films that I can't believe what they say about it. Since I was a kid I have heard about how scary and great these films are and I saw them all and was throughly disappointed, was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's or do they just not know how boring this crude is? | negative |
As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). > | positive |
When the first trailer for this film was viewed by myself, I was curious as to what angle the storyline would take. After all the plot of having one's childhood self return to the present leaves open many options. Bruce Willis however does a superb job in the role he was given. I was surprised to see just how well he could act in this part. This is also a good career move as many others have said but after seeing it I now agree. This film is mainly about remembering the kid you used to be, and coming to the realization that you aren't the adult you planned to be. This is a wonderful story and a gripping tale that makes us all think. Usually we scorn at "What if..." movies. For example, Waterworld attempted to answer the question "What if the world were to be covered with water and...?" But truthfully, nobody cared. This movie however effects everyone in the theatre. True, young children may not fully grasp the idea of growing up and having all your dreams fizzle away, but it leaves a great impact on the adults and parents of those children. This movie is definitely worth seeing. Although, it will be better the second time around because you won't be thinking so much (about how the kid got there, and why and all that stuff) Just relax and have fun. And take something with you when you leave that cinema. Take that piece of your childhood you've forgotten and enjoy it. | positive |
In addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV''). | negative |
I am still waiting for that dark muppet film where we won't know how it ends from the beginning. I think Linklater could do one hes experimented with animation. This time I was intelligently not expecting such a thing but deeply wishing.<br /><br />Joan Cusack sucked. She moved to a made-for-tv level lazily acting this one with cliched cynic. The muppets were more life-life than she was. A disappointment.<br /><br />But then the entire film was, bar Pepe. I loved him. He was the only one to ever get me laugh(while Goldbergh as God got me choking and cursing). If we can't see a dark muppets than how about at least a PG:13 one with more of Pepe's controversial jokes and Animals metal-head, egg-nog-chuggin persona.<br /><br />The worst Muppets I saw even the boring Christmas Carol beats this one out. The muppets need to avoid this over commercialized holiday.<br /><br />5/10 | negative |
I too must apologize for a somewhat biased opinion of this endeavor as I contributed to the soundtrack. Still I received my copy, sat back and enjoyed the rolling cast of characters who were perhaps more colorful than the characters they were creating in this tale of a film sequel shanghai. For those who feel George Bush is a "credible Texan", one need look no further than this film to shatter the image that Texas is full of truck driving, one-dimensional rednecks. The cast contains some of the most intelligent, peculiar and humorous folks you'll find anywhere as they spin their tales of agony, bliss and disappointment in going for a great film sequel, no budget, guerilla style (i.e. "punk rock style" as each person helps define).<br /><br />This is a great documentary made with passion and guts and all the venom you'll need to break through to the other side of whatever industry b.s. and doublespeak you're dealing with (take note authors, painters, musicians and fellow filmmakers). It hearkens back to the credibility of the first wave of American hardcore music when the term "D.I.Y." was the standard, a period where courage, passion and commitment mattered way more than technique, style or precious calculations. Not that there isn't plenty of technique or style to this...the tone of the documentary is quite refreshing. The editing cuts provide as much drama as the dialog therein.<br /><br />The idea of creating a documentary out of the sad demise of the cast, crew and director's initial intent is brilliant, totally Texas and absolutely punk rock. In the truest sense of the term. | positive |
"Trigger Man" is definitely the most boring and silliest movie I've ever seen in my life. My aunt's holiday videos are more fascinating.<br /><br />The actors seem to be recruited at uglypeople.com. They do not have any talent to act in a convincing manner.<br /><br />They walk and walk and walk through the forest. There's more walking-around than in all three parts of "The Lord of the Rings" together. After the first hour, I began to read a Porsche brochure while watching "Trigger Man" along the way. Awful.<br /><br />A total waste of time and money. I'd give that movie 0 stars out of 10, since this is not possible, I have to give 1 star. | negative |
Fantastic documentary. A movie within a movie. I'm so glad Block forged on after his Mother's death. Makes one wonder about the time and money spent in therapy. What might have happened if she didn't have that outlet? Did the therapist help her or just foster a dependency that kept his bank account flush? The audience needs to understand that divorce was less of an option in those days. She was a housewife - went to therapy instead of going to college or job training. She seemed to feel trapped by the situation. I wonder if the therapist ever tried to get her to think about what she could have done to change her situation and free herself? Meanwhile, wife #2 was just the opposite. She was out there, working with his Dad; ended her bad marriage, supported herself and appears to be a very confident, giving person. Whatever the state of the marriage, the Blocks did something right in raising 3 kids who could look at their parents' story, be OK with it and share it with us and maybe lead us to start conversations with our parents and spouses. | positive |
Perhaps I missed the meeting when the meaning of "B-movie" was explained, but what I just saw was ridiculous. You want a good synopsis of this movie? Take Aliens, replace the xenomorphs with vampires, then remove everything that was good about it, and that's pretty much it.<br /><br />5 minutes into the movie, the "V-SAN squad" (that's the dumbest acronym I've ever heard) checks out a "base" thats been massacred by vampires and then they climb down (DOWN? What?) a ladder obviously attached to a billboard with an obvious present day train in the background. When is this supposed to take place? 2210. Okay...(hold on, I'll get back to that)<br /><br />Yeah. the characters. Wow, well there's the token lesbian Asian chick, the redneck cowboy wannabe, the weathered captain, the goth vampire/Hot Topic part-time cashier, and the wussy noob second in command. All of them are played by their respective actors with the same lack of ambition. It almost pained me to see Micheal Ironside in this flick. Isn't he getting enough money being the voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell? Pretty much the only thing original about Vampire Wars is about how bad it is.<br /><br />Watching this afterbirth of a film, the only amusement I got was from the feeble attempts at set-making. Since when does taping PCI computer cards on a wall count as a ready room on a starship? The money required to do this film could have been put to much more better use. | negative |
Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....<br /><br />Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.<br /><br />There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?<br /><br />The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?<br /><br /> | positive |
The year is 1964. Ernesto "Che" Guevara, having been a Cuban citizen for the last five years,disappears from the face of the Earth,leaving a glum Fidel Castro to announce that he is probably dead,when in truth, he has left Cuba to move to Bolivia to live an assumed identity. Whilst living in La Paz,Guevara undertakes an idea to overthrow the corrupt,bourgeois government there. Once again,Steven Soderberg takes up where 'Che:Part One' leaves off (only better this time). The pacing is more on target,the job of acting is ever so fine (including a turn by a sickly looking Benecio Del Toro,as Che Guevara). Suffice it to say,it's probably best if you see both films,to get the true story of Guevara & what kind of a man he was (I had the rare open window of opportunity to see both films at one screening----talk about a long haul!). As with 'Che-Part 1:The Argentine',this film has no MPAA rating, but contains enough salty language & violence to easily snag it an 'R'. | positive |
Just to mention one more thing about Gentleman Jim. I agree with all the assessments that make this among Errol Flynn's greatest outings in a career of great outings. I would think this role playing boxer Jim Corbett is more like his real personality than the swashbucklers he was typecast as. Flynn seemed like a party animal from his memoirs and was one guy whose real life was more exciting than his screen life. The extra thing I wanted to point out is notice the great montages, transitions, and still inserts that punctuate the film. Although the director was Raoul Walsh, a frequent collaborator with Flynn, with cinematographer Sid Hickox, the montages were made up by an up and coming editor named Don Siegel. I never knew Siegel went that far back but he's listed right in the credits. He would go on to a great career as action director himself. | positive |
...but memorable because it includes an actor I actually recognize! James Horan is, by these types of movies' standards, Lawrence Olivier. He's given some decent performances on stuff like Highlander and various Star Treks, so it's kind of amusing, if mildly depressing, watching him degrade himself here. Okay, yeah, there's a plot. Horan's character and his wife are fighting, he's having an affair with a movie reviewer while trying to do his "masterpiece" film, and their guest decides to enjoy the wonders of stripping. But watching Horan is really the only enjoyment to be found here. | negative |
I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?<br /><br />Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.<br /><br />What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story. | positive |
It's been 3 months and you know what that means...A new Seagal movie. Seagal has really been on role making horrible film after horrible film. Each time every movie getting worse and worse, he's really amazing! I don't really know what to say about TYD, first it's a piece of crap, the story makes no sense at all, secondly he uses stunt men in all his fight scenes, and last but not least a lot of the footage is taken from other movies! It amazes how this guy continues to find work, he comes to the set late and leaves early and because of that his films are full of plot holes and stunt men. Why do we continue to buy his movies, why do we continue to have hope that maybe just maybe he will make a great movie? | negative |
I couldn't hold back the tears when I watched this beautiful documentary. It was heart-breaking, disturbing, and inspiring all in one. I recommend this documentary to anyone seeking something that will make them think about what they are doing with their own lives. Or simply, something that will make you think. You watch as John lives through the last couple months of his life. You watch as he goes through his days with a positive attitude. At one point you begin to see that he is truly an amazing individual. You begin to understand that he has something to teach all of us. His life and struggles will make you cry, laugh, and find that life's a lot easier to live if you just take it one day at a time. | positive |
One piece of trivia that is often forgotten about this family film is one of business.<br /><br />At the time, in 1994, this movie held the record for the biggest movie premiere in motion picture history (and may continue to hold). It was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - no doubt in honor of the original film's "Angels" who "haunted" the Pittsburgh Pirates. In this remake they "haunt" the California Angels.<br /><br />Anyway, the premiere was held at the long gone Three Rivers Stadium which was the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Pittsburgh Steelers at the time (the Pirates are now housed in PNC Park and the Steelers at Heinz Field). The premiere was held on a movie screen that was five stories in height inside the stadium and held (and may even continue to hold) the record for the largest movie premiere in history, shown to 60,000 fans. Danny Glover, Tony Danza and Christopher Lloyd were all in attendance to the admiration of thousands of sports fans. | positive |
Chase has created a true phenomenon with The Sopranos. Unfaltering performances, rock-solid writing, and some great music make up what has become quite possibly the best show ever.<br /><br />All of the cast are strong, but Falco and Gandolfini earned every inch of those Emmy's. Anyone who doubts this need only sample a few episodes; particularly from the first few seasons. James Gandolfini is absolutely fierce, absolutely terrifying, and you still find yourself loving him - mesmerized by him.<br /><br />Many people that I've spoken to about The Sopranos (who haven't seen it yet) will say "I'm just not a fan of mafia movies/shows". Whatever. Run - don't walk - and get it. Those same people usually love "E.R.", but I bet they don't much care for hospitals... It's not about the context. | positive |
THis movie may be the worst movie I have ever seen. Basically it is right above Leprachaun 5, the only difference is that it missing Ice T. The scene where he does the chick with the carrott...priceless. Oh yeah they made a second one, genius | negative |
Not only the title, the film itself is a long one too, or so it seems. That's because of the outdated style of acting and the pathetic way its hackneyed themes are visualised. Bad marriages of the sisters and a homo-brother who dares not speak the name of his sexual preference - Italy 2003, you don't believe it (and you don't have to). | negative |
Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low. | negative |
First off let me say that this is probably in my opinion one of the 10 most underrated movies since this came out in 72. I absolutely loved this movie, it's very urban, gritty, no real Hollywood glam added to it.. you can actually feel for all of the characters in here, i love the blood just splattering abound in here. Joe Pesci was pretty good in here, but to me it seems like he was definitely outdone by the lead character Joe Cortese, now i don't know anything about him , but boy can he really act.. I believe this movie is probably true, because living in New Jersey,, living close to Philly, you here this kinda thing all the time. i think that if the movie had a bigger budget , and say Robert deniro as jerry's boss you would have a perfect movie, but hey who am i to argue, i was so engrossed by this film, that it is already up there in my mind, with Mean Streets. I wish Hollywood would go back to this urbanized, gritty display of movie making: it would serve them very well to do so. this movie is a great drama with great actors in it. and i highly recommend it to anyone. | positive |
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much. | negative |
This movie is bad. Just bad. In absolute terms, bad. <br /><br />The dialog jumps off the screen and slugs you in the face with its thoroughly artificial banter, and then defecates on your ability to detect even trace amounts of subtlety. <br /><br />Racism is bad. Racism in Los Angeles can be especially bad. I live in the city of Angels, I can attest to that. What is so terrible about the bigotry in Los Angeles is its insidious nature. It creeps at you with a knowing glance, or a swallowed word. Until just at the edge of a full on fist-fight, It almost never comes right out and says, "why did he have to be black!" <br /><br />I can see quite clearly that the car-jackers are black, the detective's partner is hispanic, the DA is white. As long as there is film rolling through the projector, I can let the visuals, music and words take me to that conclusion without just telling me the conclusion. Characters emote, and we read between the lines to make the connections and conclusions. <br /><br />That is a partnership and trust between filmmaker and audience. That trust is raped by this movie. <br /><br />A good film pulls you in directions as an audience, and it steers you with cues to drive to a point. This movie beats you down with its point and insults you and your intelligence along the way. My unanswered question is, why did we as a society say collectively, "thank you?" | negative |
There's not much to say about this one. Gammera is some kind of fire breathing turtle. He is loosed by a nuclear explosion. He heads for land and begins to destroy building and tanks and other junk (oh yeah, power lines. I almost forgot). At one time, early in the film, he befriends a little boy, and instead of just throwing him away, or squashing him, he places him down on the ground. Safe. From then on we have to watch this chubby faced little twerp show up and run away, show up and run away, show up and run away. For some reason, Gammera is able to hear this kid from 20,000 feet away. Oh, well, the plot is to try to get Gammera to get to a place where he can be put on board a rocket and shot into space. As usual, the monster is lumbering and uncoordinated (a guy in a Gammera suit). The Japanese army (with the help of Americans), uses up enough ammunition and fire power to solve the national debt, and, of course, it does no good. They should know this anyway. We've seen a lot of monsters stomp on Tokyo. Not to put these down because they can be fun, but it's really not very good. | negative |
Realistic Master-Piece. thirty years later, the pictures can look a bit old, but actually, it only accurate the 'fist in the face' effect of the movie. I never saw in my whole life a film like this one. First time I saw it, I didn't know if it was a fiction... And It didn't looked like... That movie is a masterpiece that every single person in the world have to see. It's the best ever society critical movie. The ultimate movie that demonstrate that the system is down. And the system has not change a lot, in thirty years. I think this movie would have to be watched as an education piece. | positive |
This almost perfect cinematic rendition of Edith Nesbit's popular children's novel follows the lives of Roberta (Bobbie), Phyllis, and Peter, and their mother, after their father is unfairly accused of treason and sent to prison. They go to live in an almost uninhabitable house in the country which stands near a railway line mum writes stories to make enough money for food and candles, while the children spend much of their time around the railway station and, specifically, waving to one particular train to 'send their love to father'.<br /><br />Always an involving and clever novel, the characters are here brought to life under the perceptive direction of Lionel Jeffries (better known as a fine character actor). Jenny Agutter plays Bobbie, while Sally Thomsett and Gary Warren are her sister and brother. Their mother is Dinah Sheridan, while the other memorable characters are played by Bernard Cribbins (Perks the railway-man) and William Mervyn (the old gentleman on the train).<br /><br />'The Railway Children' is gentle entertainment from another age, but does its job beautifully. As we watch Bobbie grow up with the worries of an absent parent jostling against her own needs both to be alone and to have fun, we can only rejoice when events come together at the close of the picture. Throughout we have a sense of time and place be it from the steam trains, the university paper chase, or the red flannelette petticoats worn by the girls (and used to avert disaster!). | positive |
I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost! | negative |
No matter how many times Wile Ethelbert "Famishius Famishius" Coyote tries to get Road "Burnius Roadibus" Runner, we always know what's going to happen, though our sympathy always remains with WEC. The highlight in "Hook, Line and Stinker" is a Rube Goldberg-style scheme that WEC hopes will finally finish off RR; but of course you know what happens.<br /><br />So, Wile E. continues hilarious engaging in fanaticism (defined by George Santayana as redoubling your effort after you've forgotten your aim) while Road Runner pretty much never becomes aware of the potential danger - or lack thereof - in which he could find himself. A real classic.<br /><br />And yes, the coyote's middle name is Ethelbert. I learned that from "Jeopardy!". | positive |
I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs. | negative |
A gem of a cartoon from the silent era---it was re-discovered by CARTOON NETWORK, and was broadcast for likely the first time in decades, if ever.<br /><br />What makes this so enjoyable are the varied cameos...Douglas Fairbanks is attacked by giant mosquitos; Will Hays pays a visit as 'boss' of Static Studios; as well as appearances by Chaplin, Keaton, and William S. Hart. The image of chewing gum decimating the shoes of the populace (a money-making idea for Felix's near-bankrupt shoe-=salesman boss) cannot be described--it must be viewed. A terrific cultural gem. | positive |
this movie was a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom. <br /><br />also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that). <br /><br />the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting. <br /><br />in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!<br /><br />i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it). <br /><br />however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;) | negative |
He did one at Christmas to try and bring back a number one song, and now the terrific Justin Lee Collins wanted to reunite the cast members and maybe some crew of one of his favourite TV shows as a kid, The A-Team. The only member he wouldn't be able to get was the late great George Peppard who played main character Col. John "Hannibal" Smith, but he did get some kind of psychic to try and help. He did manage to reunite all members including Dirk Benedict (Lt. Templeton "Faceman" Peck #2) who went to Celebrity Big Brother in 2007, Dwight Schultz (Capt. H.M. "Howling Mad" Murdock), Melinda Culea (Amy Amanda Allen), William Lucking (Col. Lynch) and Lance LeGault (Col. Roderick Decker, the only member of the team to die). He did talk to Mr. T (Sgt. Bosco "B.A." Baracus) in an anticipated interview, but he was unavailable to turn up at the reunion. It was really fun watching him trying to find them, and talking to them, even though they probably didn't want to, and the reunion of course is the great climax. Very good! | positive |
The deceptive cover, title and very small hidden print of Power of Prayer tricked me into renting this movie.<br /><br />It started out really well and pulled me in. I REALLY liked it. Between 1/3 and 3/4's of it, the film started throwing in things that were not set up and made no sense. My first thought was, "This is not written by someone who knows how to tell a story." I ended up re-watching parts of the movie, thinking I had missed something.<br /><br />By the time I reached the last 1/5 of the movie, it was all BORING, ANNOYING, RELIGION THUMPING DIALOG that made no sense, said nothing, and was annoying to listen to; I turned off the sound and did a fast forward to the end.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this flick.<br /><br />Beware of DVDs labeled Whitlow Films and Level Path Productions.<br /><br />And I'm a practicing Catholic. | negative |
I just finishing watching Goliath Awaits that I ordered from my library. I remembered it vaguely from years ago and wanted to watch it with my son. Anyway, the movie was less than 2 hours running time and I thought it was much longer when I first saw it. The back of the VHS box states that the Goliath "emtombs a Nazi file whose secrets could destroy the free world forever." The divers were supposedly on a covert mission to retrieve the demonic document. There was nothing even spoken about retrieving this document. Also, the box says that the "bestial ship's insatiable boiler feeds on human blood." That would make this a horror movie and there was also nothing revealed in the movie about this. I can't remember the details when I watched this years ago on TV...but could the back of this box actually be true? Maybe the 3 hour movie revealed more details??<br /><br />Just wondering if anyone knows anything about this. | negative |
This is an excellent film, full of complexity, themes and great dialogue. The characters are well drawn, with Phil the biggest loser of all time.<br /><br />Adam Haddrick's character is the most vicious thing I've seen on screen since Alec Guinness's portrayal of Adolf Hitler in 'Hitler: The Last Ten Days.'<br /><br />I just wish they'd all got away with it. But without giving too much away, there are some situations you just cannot lie your way out of. | positive |
"Watch the Skies" (2005 - 60 minutes) is an excellent documentary about movies of Science Fiction. It was produced and directed by the critic Richard Schickel, author of more than 20 books on this theme. Mark Hamill is the documentary narrator. Schickel joins directors as Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, George Lucas and Ridley Scott to carry through a trip in time and space to show some of the most memorable science fiction movies of the fifties and also some more recent classics. The documentary shows six different approaches: The paranoia of the atomic war; The fantastic trips to the Moon; The enigmatic planet Mars; Good and evil aliens; The after-apocalyptic world; and The humanity future. It presents comments and scenes of the following classics: The Flying Saucers, Rocketship XM, Destination Moon, The Space Children, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, The Incredible Shrinking Man, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, A Trip to the Moon, The Angry Red Planet, Forbidden Planet, The Thing From Another World, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers, I Married a Monster from Outer Space, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Blob, The War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, ET: The Extra Terrestrial, The Omega Man, The Planet of the Apes, The Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Things To Come and Metropolis. Highly recommended to Science Fiction fans! | positive |
now we know radu munteans movies, the excellent PAPER WILL BE BLUE and BOOGIE, but its worth to see again (or at last) this first FURIA, which shows perfectly clear his initial qualities. <br /><br />its very interesting to see how his beginners talent developed into confirming him as one of the best romanian contemporary directors.<br /><br />of course, the movie itself is excellent - intelligent and professional script, sure-handed direction, stylish photography. definitely, one of the best - in the most serious and competent sense! also, munteans storytelling sense is compelling and gripping - and he actors... well, they simply rock! | positive |
These are one of the movies that don't require any brain or thinking, it's a very funny time pass which you forgot in the next hour or so. I was really surprised with John Abraham's acting he usually playing the gangster like character with the emotionless face,so from that to playing the complete opposite and does it successfully,by managing to shine amongst the comic geniuses such as Paresh Rawal and Akshaye Kumar. I was also quite surprised with the Akshaye's 3 girls because there roles don't require much talent but mostly moaning about Akshaye's dissapearence(to the other girls) i was surprised as they managed to establish and actual persona and you could differentiate between them which is a good thing ,also majority of songs are good,it is colourful and fun so on a boring Sunday evening this will sure lighten your mood. | positive |
Bare Wench is another softcore parody of the Blair Witch project (I think there's about two dozen of those things out there). It has 5 very attractive women (which includes Nikki Fritz, Julie Smith, and Julie Strain), and one dorky guy whose only purpose is to provide comic relief.<br /><br />Okay, so I'm thinking "Cool. Great looking women, having softcore lesbian sex with each other very 10 minutes or so. This should be real good."<br /><br />Unfortunately, the producers blew it. There is nothing in this video that actually qualifies as a sex scene. There's a couple of false starts, but the majority of the action is just the women posing for the camera. I guess once the producers had spent their money on the women, and spent more getting them to remove their clothes, they didn't have any money left to get them to actually do anything. And I guess they also used up all their alloted nudity time too early, because towards the end of the video, there is a huge amount of pointless dialogue that is obviously being used for no other reason than to pad out the run time. "You're a liar! No you are! You go into the cave! No you go! I think we should go home! Well, I don't!" This goes on and on and on forever.<br /><br />There's way better stuff than this. | negative |
This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master. | negative |
"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell("The Evil Dead","Intruder")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" or "Last House on the Left".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious time. | negative |
This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No! | negative |
A previous reviewer said the movie is not all that bad. What?!?!?! The movie glorifies child molestation. Oh, but Sylvia Kristel was naked in it, so let's give it 5 out of 10 stars. Why not a full 10? Because the filmography was "agonizing," the child's looks of shock were "unrealistic," and the fat friend was "irritating." Nowhere in the review does the reviewer express any outrage that an American movie in 1981 featured scenes of a child having sex with a grown woman. I happened to catch this steaming loaf of a movie while staying at a hotel that had Showtime. To me, even if the fat friend had acted up a storm and was a deserving of an Oscar, I would still have to give the movie only 1 star. That TV's Howard Hessman starred in the movie at the same time as he was appearing in WKRP is particularly ridiculous. But don't take my word for it! | negative |
What were they thinking when they made this truly TERRIBLE film? <br /><br />Arbus, one of the most important photographers and women of the Twentieth Century, had a fascinating and dramatic life. What possessed anyone to make this film, which explains her unique artistic vision, as being the result of an (imaginary) affair with a grotesque, yet charismatic hairy freak (played by Downey)?<br /><br />In real life, Arbus broke out of a traditional marriage and woman's role to express herself. In this movie, Arbus is an ultra-dreary Nicole Kidman whose inspiration is all attributed to a "Beauty and The Beast" devotion to an interesting man.<br /><br />For this reinvention, the film is truly shameful. Independent of that, it is also just dopey and dull. | negative |
This movie's script is indistinguishable from others, most notably The Core, another bad movie. It's pretty clear why Luke Perry doesn't get much work, but to see the beloved Lt. Commander Worf (Michael Dorn) resigned to something like this is just sad.<br /><br />I really can't think of one plot twist that isn't seen coming a mile away. That's not an exaggeration.<br /><br />Special effects are very poor, even by TV standards. The lava flow at the beginning of the movie signaling the coming global disaster, starts things off at a very amateurish level. And it gets no better from that point on. | negative |
Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there
Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc
the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else. | negative |
The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.<br /><br />The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).<br /><br />The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.<br /><br />The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.<br /><br />I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the "nothing" that inhabits this film. | negative |
20 out of 10 This is a truly wonderful story about a wartime evacuee and a curmudgeonly carpenter Tom Oakley. The boy (William Beech) is billeted with Tom and it is immediately apparent that he has serious issues when he wets his bed on the first night. William is illiterate and frightened but somehow the two find solace in each others loneliness. It transpires that William has a talent as an artist and we see Tom's talent as a choirmaster in an amusing rendition of Jerusalem. William is befriended by Zacharias Wrench, a young Jewish lad also from London and along with both Tom and Zacharias, he finally learns to read and write and to feel a part of this small close knit community. Just as he is settling down, William is recalled back to London by his mother, and it is here we see why he is so screwed up. His mother is clearly mentally sick and when Tom doesn't hear from William, he travels to London to look for him. He finally finds him holding his dead baby sister where he has been tied up in a cellar. After a period in hospital, Tom realises he must kidnap him and take him home with him. The climax is a bitter-sweet ending when William is told he is to be adopted by Tom, while at the same time, learning his best friend Zacharias has been killed in an air raid in London. For me, one of the most moving scenes was when Tom was talking to a official from the Home Office.<br /><br />I love 'im, an' for what it's worth, I think he loves me too'.<br /><br />It just doesn't get better that that does it? | positive |
Believe me, I wanted to like "Spirit". The idiotic comments people made at the time of its release about how quaint it was to see old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation again, as if the last pencil-animated cartoon had been released twenty years ago, and the even more idiotic comments about how computers had now made the old techniques obsolete, had got my blood up ... but then, the insulting, flavourless banality I had to endure in the first ten minutes of "Spirit" got my blood up even more.<br /><br />The character designs are generic, the animation (partly as a result) merely competent, the art direction as a whole so utterly, boringly lacklustre that you wonder how it could have come about (we know, from "The Prince of Egypt" and "The Road to El-Dorado", that there are talented artists at Dreamworks), and the sophisticated use of CGI is in every single instance ill-judged. (Why do they bother?) There's not a single thing worth LOOKING at. In an animated cartoon, this is fatal.<br /><br />But it gets worse...<br /><br />The horses can't talk, but they're far more anthropomorphised and unconvincing than the deer in "Bambi", which can. And it seems that, in a way, the horses CAN talk. Spirit himself delivers the prologue (sounding for all the world like a 21st-Century actor picked out of a shopping mall in California), and from then on his laid-back, decidedly unhorselike narration is scarcely absent from the soundtrack, although it never once tells us anything that we didn't already know, or expresses a feeling which the artwork, poor though it is, wasn't capable of expressing twice as well. That prologue, by the way: (a) contains information which Spirit, we later discover, had know way of knowing; (b) expresses ideas which Spirit would lack the power to express even if he COULD talk; (c) includes new age rubbish like, "This story may not be true, but it's what I remember"; and (d) will give countless children (the production is pitched, I presume, at six-year-olds) the impression that horses are native to North America, which is sort of true, in that the common ancestor of domestic horses, zebras etc. WAS native to North America - but all horse species on the continent had gone extinct long before the first humans arrived, and the mustangs of Spirit's herd (which allegedly "belong here like the buffalo grass") were descended from horses introduced by Europeans.<br /><br />So the prologue rather annoyed me.<br /><br />As often as Spirit talks, Bryan Adams sings, sounding as usual as though he's got a bad throat infection - and it's not THAT he sings or even HOW he sings, it's WHAT he sings: maudlin narrative ballads which contribute even less, if possible, than Spirit's spoken narrative, and which sound as though they all have exactly the same tune (although I was paying close attention, and was able to discern that they probably didn't). If only Bryan Adams and the guy-pretending-to-be-a-horse could have SHUT UP for a minute or two, the movie might have been allowed to take its true form: mediocre and derivative, rather than jaw-droppingly bad. | negative |
I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.