review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I enjoyed this film. But I was surprised to see people referring to it as a comedy. It was amusing at times, but really, it wasn't very funny at all. If I'd been expecting it to be a comedy, I might have been disappointed with the film, but, going in with no expectations, I found it to be enjoyable and engaging. Maybe it was because, as an engineer, I identified with the protagonist. I was less concerned with satire of capital or labor, and more into the basic story of a man fighting for his invention. A man who's less interested in monetary gain from his invention than he is in seeing it come to fruition and be put into production. He's absolutely heroic when he refuses to take the big money and the hot woman in return for suppressing his invention. So I find it interesting that people here have compared it to Jurassic Park; me, I compare it to The Fountainhead. | positive |
"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.<br /><br /> | negative |
If you want to learn something about the Spanish Civil War and about all the political details and intrigues, let me tell you, you've chosen the wrong film.<br /><br />This is a vision of the war as it happened in Majorca, a small island off the coast of Spain. When a war like this happens in a small island that takes position for the traitor almost at once, there is no war in the open. The soldiers are sent to the front to fight, in the mainland, while another kind of war happens at home, on the small island. There, neighbours tell on other neighbours, sometimes because their political views are contrary to the new regime, but many people are told on because of old family fights, or maybe the silent introvert who has no friends is told on by someone who wants to "earn some points". And these things don't happen in the open. There were some trials, true, but many other times people would just be woken up in the middle of the night, taken out of their homes to the closest cemetery where they would be killed. And the next morning the bodies would be found, and people would have an idea of what had happened, but nobody would dare to speak or to do anything. We're not talking about soldiers killing someone they had never seen in their life. We're talking about people killing their neighbours, and probably saying hello to their widow the next day, and even attending the funeral for the guy they had killed. We're talking about villages with one or two thousand inhabitants, where everybody knew everybody.<br /><br />I am from that small island and I've heard the stories my grandparents told me, and I must say that this film upset me, oh yes, it did; but I also found it remarkably beautiful and moving. The initial violence is not something the director or the writer made up, that's how things happened during that war. A kid knowing that his mate's dad is in the fascist squad that killed his dad? Completely possible. All that happened later on? Possible too. TB was real too. At that time my island was not the holiday resort it has become. People were poor, illiterate, and worked in small farms. After the war there were times of hardship.<br /><br />So, you won't find a war story in this film, or at least not the kind of war story you expect. There are no battlefields, no soldiers, no political intrigues. This is the meanest kind of war, which happens when the space is limited (just check the size of the island), when neighbours fight with their neighbours, when members of the same family fight each other, and they live in a place where everybody knows everybody. You'll find a story about the damage that this particular kind of war can cause to people and the story of how they survive that damage, or maybe they don't.<br /><br />I must mention the excellent work done by the writers who adapted the novel and by all the actors, who managed to sound really Majorcan. That was remarkable. | positive |
'Arms and the Man' is one of Shaw's funniest plays if handled correctly, and this production does a good enough job. Helena Bonham-Carter, pre-film stardom, is Raina, the daughter of a military family, who has a peacock of a fiancé (Patrick Ryecart), and who shelters a soldier from the enemy (Pip Torrens) during a raid on the town.<br /><br />Full of colour and energy, this production rips along at a good pace, and if Bonham-Carter and Patsy Kensit as the maid are outshone a bit by the rest of the cast, they still hold their ground. Kika Markham and Dinsdale Landen as the parents are delightful, and the whole play is generally a happy one.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | positive |
<br /><br />"step aside for hollywood veterans?" (the wayan brothers were 'asked') thats what hollyweird demanded and thats what it got. However, like so many of its recent decisions this one was a stupendous mistake.<br /><br />The director is SO out of touch with todays audience, attempting to bring back physical pratfalls and gags in place of funny dialogue is just a DISASTER. I knew it, the audience knew it and the CAST knew it.<br /><br />What a shame, why did they EVER consider changing directors? Not only that but the two Wayan brothers played as two of four primary characters, without them its just a farce and a sad one.<br /><br />SP<br /><br /> | negative |
This movie does not really promote kids to be nicer and have better attitudes, as a family movie should, and this wouldn't be considered family anyway because it has some things in it that children shouldn't be seeing. Not the best ABC Family film if you ask me. If there were less sexual themes in the movie, then maybe it would be better. Hollywood isn't doing anything to make a movie better by adding in sexual situations. There's really no reason for them. At least this is a TV movie. I wouldn't want to waste my money on this garbage by renting it. If you have other things to do other than watch this movie, please proceed to them. | negative |
This is, for different reasons, a very very bad action movie. First of all, Seagal is terribly out of shape. He looks old and fat, plays like he has to fulfill an annoying obligation and his fight scenes require creative editing or plain replacement. Secondly, his opponent is a very weak villain. This is about a smart and mean masterbrain and Chestnut does not deliver. So what about the action ? Well, the two parties permanently shoot at each other in different locations of the Alcatraz jail. They shoot wild and bad, because compared to the amount of required ammunition, the bodycount is rather low. There is nothing to save this movie. There is not a single good line and not a single good joke. The little psychological interlude with 49er One and judge McPherson is ridiculous. So what does it have? Well, the usual Bell helicopters, silhouettes moving in blue light and slow motion, doors riddled with bullets and 1000 Watt lights shining through the holes, characters jumping through the air while shooting, loads of weapons coming from nowhere, a long black coat containing a bold black guy and a thin wooden box containing 25 tons of gold. The pain continues to the very last take, a hopeless approach to lighten up the closing credits. Californian beachboy Don Michael Paul was writing and directing. At least this mountain of boredom comes from just one simple mind. | negative |
Very good point there : "only an elite few (the upper classes) would both have access to the internet AND be able to communicate on an exclusively English speaking site such as the IMDb" Some might think Internet Is not reality but this point of view really put media society and democracy at stake: You are probably right.. Even If there Is Internet cafe's in Venezuela most Chavez supporters will not afford to even rent a computer for half an hour to comment on IMDb.<br /><br />Screw you faschist upper class rich right wing capitalist liberal intellectual surpressors .. Probably this is your first time using Internet ;).. | positive |
This one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back. | negative |
I not only consider this to be the best film that Jon Voight (Midnight Cowboy, Coming Home) has ever done, but a real tribute to teachers.<br /><br />Despite incredible odds, Pat Conroy (Voight) managed to reach a group of students and bring them from nowhere to a basic literacy and awareness of the world. His methods made be criticized by bureaucratic dinosaurs like Mr. Skeffington (Hume Cronyn), but teachers like Conroy will always be winners.<br /><br />Voight really showed that he had a love for teaching and that it was a natural high for him. he didn't overplay the role, and I found him to be totally believable. Voight is Conrack.<br /><br />Besides a love of teaching, we also see another important point in this film. No matter how good you are at your job, if you rock the boat, the bureaucrats will get you. | positive |
When recounting these events that took place some years ago, (hard to believe this actually happened)i thought, well, there is a basis for an interesting story here. Many secrets were never uncovered, the horse never found, the main conspirators never captured etc.<br /><br />However, this film seems to be distracted by character study, and very little attention payed to the plot. Some other questions are raised though, like why on earth would Mickey Rourke be in this film? Its good to see rourkes career has taken off again, but he must cringe at the mention of this rubbish.<br /><br />If the subject matter interests you, do an internet search on the topic, you'll be more educated and dare i say more entertained. Avoid this. | negative |
Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) was born to sharecroppers in the deep south. He joins the navy, whereupon he tells his father he will be back. The father gives him an old radio, and Brashear leaves on the navy bus. The Most valuable thing his unemotional father taught him was, "Never quit". After a recommendation from a white commander Powers Boothe), who admires his drive and guts, he gets sent to Navy diving school at Bayonne, NJ. He endures harassment from his pals in uniform and from his trainer, Chief Navy Master Diver, Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro), and from the commanding officer, called pappy, (Hal Holbrook, who "has almost as many loose screws as an old car". They all want to make him drop out, and the prejudice is quite fierce.The dangers of diving prove a further setback when he loses a leg due to an accident on board ship. Despite this setback, he tells his wife that he will train and achieve his objective, and with the help of Billy Sunday, (now both joined in commiseration in their sufferings), they train and he is able to become the first black Navy diver with his artificial limb despite the skepticism of a highly mocking and doubtful captain at the Navy Department hearing in Washington, DC to determine if he meets the criteria. An inspirational movie, showing that determination can overcome all odds. | positive |
Film Noire is a genre that requires a certain level of tact, cleverness, intellect, and imagery. This movie has none of that, though they really tried hard with the imagery.<br /><br />It's the kind of movie that your cousin Marky the dump truck driver, who's always talking about how he's going to make it big in the movies someday, would make.<br /><br />The dialogue is wooden and lifeless. The visuals, while obviously expensive to make, are the work of a director who has tried to be clever and failed miserably due to a severe lack in cerebral ability. The acting ranged from sub-par to just plain bad. The story might have been salvaged by a real writer and director, but I suspect that such people would not have touched it with a barge pole.<br /><br />About 1/4 of the way through, I noticed striking similarities with the scene in Sim0ne where Viktor, desperate to be rid of his actress, makes the world's worst movie. I figured I'd check IMDb to see if a similar effect has occurred in this movie, and to my surprise it has. I'd almost be tempted to give a 2 out of 10 just because it's exposed the pretentious groupies, but I won't. It's that bad. | negative |
Should we take the opening shot as a strange frame??? I guess we have to. Anyway two women are behind a closing umbrella, they walk upstairs to the talent agency and we go with them...and then they are never to be seen again. Okay, how come not INSIDE the place, at the piano, or even outside with the SOUND of the piano, then track inside and over, a la Hitchcock??? So I guess Clouzot is already telling us in a not very subliminal manner that we are following a segment of postwar society: especially how he then uses a Citizen Kane=like song cut up into about five pieces to show the lady singing traveling from the talent agency all the way to her first roses and applause of her Vaudeville debut.<br /><br />After that we are relentless observers of more or less small disgusting details of a defeated country getting off its war torn tattered knees. And nobody ever handled small disgust better than Clouzot. In fact, too bad he never tried Sartre's Nausea. Almost everything we see after the first few minutes makes us ever so slightly queasy. ....okay, okay I'm grossly overstating that, let's just settle for a general feel of a lot of the film. Look carefully, in fact, and you will even see one of the cops picking his nose. And in how many films has anyone ever done that. Then there is a very loud nose blowing bit in front of the photographer lesbian by the main cop, and notice that she does not, literally, blink an eye or raise an eyebrow.<br /><br />The point of all this is an almost feverish immersion in contiguity, seemingly, until you can smell practically every scene as well as see and feel it. <br /><br />As for the other aspects of the movie, others here have covered them in a lot more detail than I. But forget about the mystery here: this is the ultimate McGuffin. Clouzot is about as interested in the real killer as those two women coming in out of the rain in the first few seconds of the film and are never seen again. From beginning to end all he wanted to do was follow a bunch of people around, not even particularly interesting ones at that, and say, here look at this woman's twitch, that man's hitching of his pants in all their insignificance, years and years before Tina Turner was singing we don't need another hero. \<br /><br />Even the forced levity of the ending is bleakly done in a dilapidated part of Paris, and rather chilly bare walled apartment. With only the couples love for each other to see them through, as if to say there must be two or three million like you throughout the city, working your fingers off by the day for a little love at night.<br /><br />From this it was just a short step to Wages of Fear and the ultimate in despair. <br /><br />They don't even know how to make films like this anymore in the U.S. For that matter, they didn't even know how to very much in France then, much less now. The relentless detail of gesture makes even the neorealists of Italy look like bad psychologists. Which I guess makes Clouzot a kind of Rosselini on speed. <br /><br />Very enjoyable nonsense, this movie. The only flaw, seems to me, and as was pointed out by another viewer, the lead woman is somehow not quite right. Everybody else in the film is just about perfectly cast. | positive |
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the creators of the show 'South Park' , return with something entirely different.They create a new sport that combines baseball and basketball.This sport is known as baseketball.It's like basketball except that the rules of baseball are involved and there's another letter e in the title.Here's how you play: you just shoot the ball while these two guys try to distract you from making the shot.Sounds simple.In fact, I might try it one day.After the game hits the streets, it soon becomes a huge success.Who would've known that 2 immature friends could invent a sport that became so successful?<br /><br />My opinion<br /><br />'Baseketball' is a very crude and silly spoof filled with lots of slapstick violence, yet it actually delivers some laughs and plenty of entertainment.A definite recommendation for those of you who like slapstick and rude humor. | positive |
I like Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes. | negative |
Perhaps the weakest film in the "Kharis" series, despite the presence of John Carradine (miscast as an Egyptian high priest) and George Zucco (as his predecessor, hilariously afflicted by a bad case of Parkinson's Disease) supporting Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular creature - if indeed it was him under the bandages, as his contribution is negligible at best! It's a watchable 60 minutes in itself, I guess, but the standards have considerably lowered when compared even to the two previous entries, and the end result is strictly routine and not at all memorable. Just about the only interesting feature here is the fact that the female lead happens to be the reincarnation of Princess Ananka, mentioned a great deal in earlier films but never actually seen. | negative |
There have been so many many films based on the same theme. single cute girl needs handsome boy to impress ex, pays him and then (guess what?) she falls in love with him, there's a bit of fumbling followed by a row before everyone makes up before the happy ending......this has been done many times.<br /><br />The thing is I knew this before starting to watch. But, despite this, I was still looking forward to it. In the right hands, with a good cast and a bright script it can still be a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours.<br /><br />this was none of these.<br /><br />this was dire.<br /><br />A female lead lacking in charm or wit who totally failed to light even the slightest spark in me. I truly did not care if she "got her man" or remained single and unhappy.<br /><br />A male lead who, after a few of his endless words of wisdom, i wanted to kill. Just to remove that smug look. i had no idea that leading a life of a male whore was the path to all-seeing all-knowing enlightenment.<br /><br />A totally unrealistic film filled with unrealistic characters. none of them seemed to have jobs, all of them had more money than sense, a bridegroom who still goes ahead with his wedding after learning that his bride slept with his best friend....plus "i would miss you even if we had never met"!!!!! i could go on but i have just realised that i am wasting even more time on this dross.....I could rant about introducing a character just to have a very cheap laugh at the name "woody" but in truth that was the only remotely humorous thing that happened in the film. | negative |
We saw this film in Toronto at the Film Festival last year. It was a truly moving experience. I had heard of the Truth and Reconcilliation process, but as others have written, did not know much about the details of the process. This film demonstrated the process and the growth that can occur when people are able to face up to their pasts, understand the events from the points of view of others involved, and grieve together. Archbishop Tutu and the others involved in developing the T & R process deserve recognition for their understanding of human emotions. Seeing this film gave me hope for the human race. If we can do T & R, we just might not destroy ourselves. People will look back at T and R as the first step out of human adolescence and toward maturity.<br /><br />As a film, of course there were flaws. I did not notice any major problems in acting, directing, or writing - but for the first time in years I was totally lost in a film, so perhaps I did not notice.<br /><br />See this film. The audience in Toronto would not give up the stage for the next film, we had so many questions and comments for the stars and director. Tom Hooper, Jamie Bartlett, and Chiwetel Ejiofor went outside to the sidewalk to continue the conversation. People came by just to shake their hands and thank them for the film. It moved us all. | positive |
I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.<br /><br />Intriguing.<br /><br />NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.<br /><br />Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.<br /><br />And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.<br /><br />Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10. | negative |
He plays straight but with a quiet intensity that makes him one of the top cops in movie history. Roy Scheider stars in a poor man's French Connection that has a little of the same gritty appeal. FC is a better movie, but I prefer watching this one because 1) I think Scheider is great and this is his best movie, and 2) this has the best car chase EVER, one that makes Bullitt look like a cable production (thanks again to Bill Hickman, who actually plays the driver). It doesn't hurt that Tony LoBianco stops by (again) to play a baddie. Please enjoy. | positive |
Although time has revealed how some of the effects were done this story of love and adventure still is special.<br /><br />If you've never seen this film before you'll be shocked at how much has been stolen by later film makers. I was watching this with a friend who was amazed at how much Disney's Aladdin cribbed from the film. They loved the movie and enjoyed that it was such a touchstone for so many other films and film makers.<br /><br />I've given the film an 8 out of 10 instead of a 10 out of ten, which is where a good portion of this film dwells, because in the final 15 minutes the film falls apart in the pacing. Everything is rushed as if they has to suddenly get to the end. From the point from the departure of the djinn to the end it appears to be more sketch then finished painting. It doesn't kill the film, but it does weaken it.<br /><br />Still its required viewing for anyone who loves a good fairy tale, or even a great movie. | positive |
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />Ok, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's not surprise why. | negative |
Film noir at its best. Set in the immediate aftermath of WWII ( 1946), "Crossfire" depicts the good, bad and ugly of that time. Monty Montgomery kills Sam because Sam's a Jew and therefore, automatically perceived through Monty's narrow lens, to have been a slacker who got out of fighting the war. Monty doesn't like people like that. The truth is that Sam was a soldier too, but the truth is something which disappears when you're feeling right about the ideologies of hate you've been immersed in and the world is full of dirty this and thats, badly in need of your brand of "cleansing".<br /><br />Monty is a sadist in winning soldier's clothing. The losers of WWII had more than their share as well hate filled, prejudiced leaders and soldiers as well. Some of them were hung for war crimes, like starting a "war of aggression".<br /><br />This movie got its makers in trouble when that other sadistic cleanser of America, Joe McCarthy got his hearings going in the early 1950s.<br /><br />See "Crossfire", just to see how good an actor Robert Ryan was. The real Robert Ryan was no Monty. He WAS a great, if underestimated, under used actor.<br /><br />See "Crossfire" and get a taste of the dark side of post-WWII America. See it to get a taste of the good side of late 40s America as well. Robert Mitchim and Robert Young also play leading roles. Mitchim could have played Ryan's role, in fact, he did when he played the psychopath in "Cape Fear". | positive |
This was one of those films I would always come across (be it on TV or cheap DVD), but never struck me to give it a shot as I thought I wasn't missing out on much. It was on one night and I thought oh well
why not. A good decision too, as I would kick myself for taking so long to get around to it. For me it left me impressed, as it's up there with Burt Reynold's best features ('Deliverance', 'White Lightning' and 'Boogie Nights') and streams back to those 70s/80s gritty, hardboiled urban crime thrillers that weren't afraid to be forebodingly obscure and go out of their way to set-up characters, pack-it with realistically brutal force and effectively incorporate the local locations (Atlanta being the case here) to the fold with grounded photography. In certain shades it kind of reminded me of 'Dirty Harry', but that's loosely. However it's saucily honed blues score with its simmering kicks, funky shifts and unhinged sounds, very much had me thinking of Lalo Schifrin's pulsating score he orchestrated for 'Dirty Harry'. The music soundtrack on the other hand is hit or miss.<br /><br />Sgt. Tom Sharky was an Atlantic narcotic agent before a slip-out during a bust saw him demoted to vice work. Along with his new squad they come across a prostitution ring, which catches their interest due to fact it's owned by one hard-to-track and to convict crime lord. What they dig up involves a prominent government figure and a call-girl which can give them some important names, but they must get to her before she's made a target.<br /><br />Burt Reynold's acts, but also directs in an unyieldingly firm and muscular fashion which would suit his laconically hard-nosed performance and Gerald Di Pego's thematically hard-bitten and taut screenplay (that was adapted from William Diehl's novel). Well he does show some sort of heart/insightful thoughts amongst that armor within the scenes involving the fetchingly able British actress Rachel Ward, be it the stake-out scenes when he's watching her from another building (and slowly becoming infatuated by her) to when they finally come together, but these latter interactions mid-way through do slow up the momentum but give it noir like strokes. The performances are fairly spot on with Reynold's formulating a great rapport with exceptional actors Charles Durning, Earl Holliman, Brian Keith, Richard Libertini and Bernie Casey. The scathing profanity and witty dialogues between these guys were a blast. As for the corrupt villains, Vittorio Gassman builds imposing strength and power, but it's Henry Silva (who seems born for these roles) icily cunning and unstoppable turn that makes the show. Where his appearance seems to outline things to come and help them fall into place. Plus his adrenaline-filled and violent cat and mouse climax with Sharky and his team is brilliantly done.<br /><br />The exciting action passages might be quick and dry, but remain lethally violent like an immensely teeth-grinding interrogation sequence. Some handy, old fashion filming techniques add to the suspense. The intriguing material keeps it quite tactical being character derived, but when we think its smooth sailing it offers up a blunt surprise or two along with some intensely brunt confrontations. | positive |
Parker and Stone transplant their pacy expletive-ridden humour from their animated masterpiece to a feature length live action film with generally good results. Much of the film is Trey and Matt running amok with their new toy box. The plot is simplicity itself: two average guys invent a new sport, a blend of driveway basketball with baseball scoring which becomes a national craze. Along the way they encounter numerous sporting movie cliches and send them up, along with any other bit of popular culture that comes into their sights. It runs like a stretched South Park episode, with the usual machine-gun dialogue, toilet humour and homilies from the heart.<br /><br />If this film has a weakness it is the association with the team that gave us "Airplane" and the "Naked Gun" series. This influence is clearly seen with the heavy use of lame sight gags and the presence of a glossy and rather two-dimensional Yasmine Bleeth in the role usually given to Priscilla Presley. Robert Vaughn does a little better playing the corporate b**tard that has been his party piece ever since "Bullitt" and Ernest Borgnine overacts as only he can, but one must admit he's perfect for the role of the lunatic team owner.<br /><br />For those who haven't noticed yet, Parker and Stone seem to be more comfortable as rock star wannabes than comics. This manifests in the prominence given to the soundtrack in just about everything they create. As usual, they give a good selection here including the obligatory track by their own ultra-non-PC vehicle DVDA.<br /><br />A special mention must go to Dian Bachar, who deserves some sort of award for enduring the difficult job of playing Stan to Parker and Stone's rampaging pair of Cartmans.<br /><br />In summary, this is an entertaining comedy which is held back from its full potential by too much reliance on the "Naked Gun/Airplane" formula. Parker and Stone could do something truly brilliant (or absolutely awful) if given full control over a future film. America, either lock these guys up or put them in charge. | positive |
Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death. | negative |
i totally disagree with the person who first commented about this movie. to me, this storyline is about a man with growth hormonal disorder trying his best to look for the love he is yearning for. Trying his very best to fit into the society who doesn't seemed to accept him.<br /><br />He then met someone who treats him with best friend's love and was shown the way to receiving the love he always wanted to have. the man who created all that happiness in returned received something important from the giant, which is family and spouse love.<br /><br />and the comedy, it's just part of making the audience feel some laughter bugs at certain part of the shows.<br /><br />and i must admit, it made me tear a little. | positive |
As far as parody films go, there are few that are worth time and energy. but with a recent resurgence of horrid parodies such as Date Movie and The Comebacks, it is a breath of fresh air to come back and rediscover a truly funny farce like Johnny Dangerously.<br /><br />After his mother has no end of medical problems, little Johnny goes to work for the mob. What fallows is a series of gags, most of which work, there are, however, the occasional flops. But a foreign gangster who can't master the American language (profanity wise, at least), a rival gangster with a penchant for shooting his mouth off (...once!), a younger brother with the D.A. who is out to get Johhny Dangerously, and a hot young starlet hot for his affections have Johnny busy.<br /><br />And the viewer will be busy laughing, for the most part, as every gangster-movie cliché is skewered by a talented cast and decent writing.<br /><br />Not perfect by a long shot, but definitely good for a smile on a bad day. | positive |
I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare. | negative |
I enjoyed this film very much. Many Korean people will feel familiar with this film because many of them have tutors when they go to school. Cinematography was average. The movie would have been better if the angel or the movement of the camera was more irregular. Editing, however, was very neat and unusual.<br /><br />The acting was also very good. Kim Ha Neul usually played an innocent, weak girl in the Korean soap-opaeras. But this time, she plays a cute tomboy very well. Kwon Sang Woo also plays his role very believable.<br /><br />What I like the most about this film is, the emotion of the characters are not too exaggerated. There are many Korean romance films that the characters cry river before the audience and I always thought it was very stale. There was no such crap in this movie.<br /><br />Very funny and well-done. | positive |
Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.<br /><br />This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of "The Highest Honor" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story. | positive |
This show is my guilty pleasure all the way!! When I first tuned in to America's Next Top Model, I expected to be bored, and to find it very very stupid. I didn't. This show is actually serious fun. I read on one of the other reviews that it makes you wonder if you have what it takes to be America's Next top model. And it so does! Who doesn't love the glamour and excitement that come with being a model? On ANTM you get to see what it's REALLY like. And who doesn't love hearing the girls bitch about each other and get into fights? Or enjoy wanting to throw something at that Janice lady?<br /><br />Give this a chance. Don't expect something intelligent or a show you can look to for a life lesson. Just enjoy it for what it is. Serious fun! | positive |
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.<br /><br />Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)<br /><br />-Zaphoid<br /><br />PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")<br /><br />-Z | negative |
This film is an excellent teaching tool as a pre-study of "To Kill a Mockingbird." In conjunction with a study of the novel itself, "...Caged Bird..." can be used as an independent literary study or as an introduction to TKM. | positive |
This film was made and cast from my home town. I remember the fuss about it and the whole hullabaloo about the fact Molly Ringwald was in town...<br /><br />Storyline...<br /><br />Essentially 20 years after a film was "laid to rest" without being finished, a group of film students set out to complete it - with dire consequences. It would seem someone does not want the film completed.<br /><br />The storyline is flimsy. One has to remember that this is a comedy and therefore has to be taken a little tounge in cheek, but it had no real oomph. The characters are mostly transperant and the little info that you recieve about them you just don't care about, it seems irrelevant. It is weird hearing Kylie's accent as Australian again and nice to see a kid I went to school with in a starring role. But that doesn't redeem the film at all. Goodness knows why the makers thought they would get in Molly Ringwald. Perhaps due to the nature of the film (it sort of pays homage to 80s films / bad horror films)but really an Aussie actor would have done just fine.<br /><br />As far as casting is concerned a lot of the acting seemed constipated. Some of these kids (especially the two main chics - they played "director" and "producer") looked like they were trying to act. That is never a good look. Also, the shots had a rough feel about them. Over lit perhaps? Just not as smooth as one is used to.<br /><br />The killer. Lord. Could it be less frightening? There are some shock factors though, and a couple of gross scenes. I did like the film, but it was not great. It went for 90 minutes but could have gone for less. Perhaps if they had tightened the script it would have been better. They had a lot of characters get killed - but no real build up to them getting slayed. Maybe if they had killed less people and actually concentrated on a scary atmosphere it would have been better.<br /><br />Now I know it is a comedy and elements were funny. Or so unbelieveable they were funny. But I am not convinced.<br /><br />LM. | negative |
I read some gushing reviews here on IMDb and thought I would give this movie a look. Disappointed. On the plus side the male leads are good, and some interesting photography but as a whole this movie fails to convince. Seems to be full of its' own self indulgent importance in trying to say something meaningful but falls way short and all in all the picture is an unconvincing mess.<br /><br />It is one of those films classified as a film noir which can be defined as follows:<br /><br />"A film noir is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace and cynical characters".<br /><br />Well that is the story here: 3 losers stumble upon each other with their collective problems that include mental illness, alcoholism, laziness, indebtedness etc and together they conspire to kidnap a child and outwit each other.<br /><br />Would have been a much better movie if the story was confined more to the kidnap instead of the character failings of the kidnappers. I thought the female lead was way out of her depth and came across as an amateur actress.<br /><br />Whilst some good moments, I finished up feeling I had wasted my time.<br /><br />4/10. | negative |
Well, in all honesty it's beyond the boundaries of stupid, but "Killer Pussy" is still one insanely entertaining little flick. No plot, tons of oiled up cha-chas, cheesy effects, and a penis eating monster! What's not to love?! Pretty much - a couple of explorers find this creature that likes to nestle itself within a woman's beef curtains until a schwang is unfortunately... ah, thrust into its mouth. It finds it's host who is later discovered frozen in a deserted house by a group of moronic guys and their equally brainless, slut girlfriends whose van breaks down. The creature jumps from each girl as they all fornicate like drunken rabbits... There's some cheap gore, girl-on-girl "blood wrestling", KY Jelly vomit, sock-puppet monsters and lots of soft-core sex. Ridiculous but a cool waste of time... | negative |
This show is without a doubt one of the greatest shows ever to be on television. I mean the acting is great, the suspense, the drama, the comedy, it has everything, and with such a simple story: A plane crashed on an island. The characters are great and Evangeline Lilly is HOT!!!!!! Matthew Fox once again shows us what a great actor he is, Josh Holloway is so great, Jorge Garcia is Hilarious, I could go on and on. Also, the unexpected plot twists, the back stories of the characters, the music that is at the end of every episode. J.J. Abrahms has once again proved what an excellent writer and producer he is. I mean this is better than ALIAS, and I loved ALIAS. Whoever isn't watching this show, should definitely consider getting the DVD's and watching it, because they are missing something great. This show could possibly be the best show in television history!! | positive |
I was fully amped up to see this film. I had been waiting a year for it to be cleared down here in New Zealand. I shouldn't have built myself up so much because it was so disappointing and is without a doubt Clark's worst film There is so much wrong with this film. First off, some of the acting is great, in particular Nick Stahl as 'The Bully', and the girl with the curly brown hair (I can't recall her name), but most of it was so out of touch and incredibly unbelievable, especially Leo Fitzpatrick. He's a veteran of Clark's films now and he was so brilliant in 'Kids', but in 'Bully' he invests his lines with such solemnity as to turn his scenes into a parody virtually. The screenplay felt like it had been written by a first year film student. No sorry, a high school student...one who has never seen a movie before. And I couldn't fathom Clark's intentions. Was he trying to point out the meaningless of these kids' existence? It sure as hell didn't stop him getting in a damn good perv. I'm no prude but I didn't need to see teenage breasts and buttocks every 5 minutes. I still maintain that Clark's best film is 'Another Day in Paradise'. It's fantastic and I don't think he'll ever top it. | negative |
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...<br /><br />This isn't entertainment...this is hell.<br /><br />Hell.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.<br /><br />It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!<br /><br />Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY! | negative |
Returning from 20 years in China, a young missionary refuses to become THE CAT'S-PAW for a gang of hometown hoodlums.<br /><br />This movie was a bit of a departure from Harold Lloyd's previous movies. Comedy derived more from dialogue, often rather serious, predominates here, rather than the elaborate sight gags which powered Harold's classics of the past. There are some splendid moments, however, which are pure visual fun, as when Harold attempts to follow a convertible down a crowded street, or when he desperately tries to keep a nightclub stripper from losing her clothes. There is also the climactic scene, set in a Chinatown basement, in which Harold gleefully jumps unabashedly into the darkest comedy. But most of the humor derives from Harold's refusal to be the patsy of the criminals who've run his hometown for years.<br /><br />And it's quite a collection of crooked politicians & thugs Harold finds himself up against, played by a bevy of fine character actors: George Barbier, Nat Pendleton, Grant Mitchell, Edwin Maxwell, Alan Dinehart, Warren Hymer & stuttering Fuzzy Knight. Pert Una Merkel is on hand as the tobacco stand girl who catches Harold's eye and keeps him intrigued by her no-nonsense outlook on life.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize Samuel S. Hinds as Harold's missionary father; Charles Sellon as an elderly Stockport clergyman; and Herman Bing as a German gangster--all uncredited. Also, showing up for only a few seconds as an attempted kidnapper, is Noah Young, a familiar face from Harold's silent films, here making his final appearance in a Lloyd picture.<br /><br />Fox gave the film fine production values, especially in the opening scenes set in China. | positive |
Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. "Attention K-Mart Shoppers!" Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot? | positive |
"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2. | negative |
After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! <br /><br />All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.<br /><br />Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.<br /><br />Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.<br /><br />Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.<br /><br />The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone. | negative |
Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.<br /><br />What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.<br /><br />Delighted Regardless, Peter | negative |
Just a comment on New Orleans accents...<br /><br />An earlier reviewer noted the following: "This film, could have been shot in New York, or another Northern big city because it presents us with characters that speak more like "broklynese" than maybe a Southern accent one might hear in that part of the country." There was also another comment along these lines from an English reviewer.<br /><br />Many people in New Orleans do, in fact, sound "broklynese". I have never found out why. (It's mentioned in "A Confederacy of Dunces" by John Kennedy Toole.) I always appreciate movies taking place in New Orleans that include this detail, as this one did. Too often it's just the Hollywood version of the standard Southern accent. | positive |
By convincing the Prime Minister to back the totally unsuitable Ali G as a candidate for Staines in the local elections, nasty chancellor David Carlton (Charles Dance) hopes to discredit his party's current leader, thus enabling him to seize power. To his surprise, however, the plan backfires, Ali is embraced by the nation, and Carlton is forced to find other ways to try and guarantee his political future.<br /><br />Puerile, crude, misogynistic, and always outrageous: Ali G Indahouse, the big-screen debut outing for Sascha Baron Cohen's middle-class Berkshire gangsta, is all of these things and much moremeaning it's my kind of film!!<br /><br />Obviously, there are those who are simply not going to get the joke, and there will definitely be people who find risqué jokes about oral sex, homosexuality, recreational drug use, hardcore pornography, and The Queen's nether regions offensive in the extreme (needless to say, they should stay well away!), but if you find such juvenile humour side-splittingly hilarious, are a fan of Baron Cohen in general, or just want to see hottie Rhona Mitra in her underwear (and you shud, cuz she iz well fit!), then I fully recommend spending an hour and a half in the company of Ali G and the West Staines Massive.<br /><br />They iz wicked! | positive |
This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended. | positive |
This is the first out of the Guinea Pig series, and is one of the more infamous films out of the collection.<br /><br />It took me a long time to finally man up and get my hands on a copy of this notorious group of films. I bought the Guinea Pig Box Set and decided to watch the collection in order by release date. So I popped this sucker in and sat down.<br /><br />From what I had read on the internet, and realizing the content involved in this film, I was expecting to test my nerves in full force. This ended up not being the case.<br /><br />The film focuses on a group of men who kidnap a woman and begin torturing her with the hopes of discovering the human breaking point, and how long a human can tolerate pain.<br /><br />Sounds like one sick flick right? Wrong. The film fails to shock. This may be because I have become desensitized over the years do to my obsession with horror, but I think it is safe to say that any true gorehound could sit through this with ease.<br /><br />On the other hand an individual who does not have a well knowledge of this type of film will most likely be overwhelmed and disgusted by the images they see on the screen. Though it failed to shock me the film contains some pretty mean spirited and graphic scenes of violence. Including the ripping out of fingernails, intestines thrown at an unconscious woman, and a needle through the eye.<br /><br />Overall I think for majority of the gorehounds on this board that you should just get your hands on a copy of this film for the novelty of it, but I suggest that for any new comers to these type of films that you should work your way up to this one. | positive |
Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10 | negative |
Don't Torture a Duckling is an absolutely stunning giallo diversion for Lucio Fulci. Unlike other subgenre heavyweights like Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Fulci takes a decidedly gritty, grounded, and socially perceptive approach to the giallo narrative in this film. There is nothing glamorous about the child murders and borderline pedophilia (a gutsy subplot for 1972) going on here, and Fulci wisely shoots with a staid and lugubrious eye, avoiding flash, melodrama, and directorial histrionics. The proceedings are punctuated by gory and instantly mind-searing set pieces that are bolstered even further by Fulci's jarring sense of realism the deeply disturbing "witch killing" scene in particular, with its bald-faced brutality, feels like a snuff film. Composer Riz Ortolani bookends these carnage-filled scenes with ferocious reverberating string blasts.<br /><br />The film is capped by a simultaneously lyrical and violent conclusion wherein theology, morality, fanaticism, and superstition collide. It is a deeply effective ending that has the capacity to leave the viewer in a befuddled and disarmed torpor.<br /><br />Fulci couldn't have picked a better location for this film. Don't Torture a Duckling was photographed in and around the ancient city of Matera, Italy. As Matera continues to modernize to this day (highlighted by its shift from an agricultural economy to an industrial one), it is grappling with its UNESCO-sponsored reputation as a receptacle for mysterious paleolithic ghosts. The anxieties of the real-life Materani are reflected by the characters in the film, who, wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, fretfully confront any exotic fringe tradition (namely witchcraft) that strays outside of the norm.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, Matera was also used as a stand-in for Jerusalem in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. If anything, this adds even more potency to Fulci's message. Catholic guilt and grisly slayings are such a resonant combination. | positive |
What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows. | negative |
While I was watching this movie I never thought I'd be defending it. It's honest enough from the begininning about not having much of a plot. There's no real characters to latch onto except the killer. Some of the acting can be better, but most of it is capable.<br /><br />I know, a three out of ten isn't stellar, but there are reviews saying it was shot poorly and completely useless, etc. I think it set out to do what it's supposed to fairly well. The lighting is minimal at times, more natural than most audiences are used to, but it's supposed top look like a camcorder snuff film. In fact, at times the quality is probably still too high to be true to that, but nobody would make it through tne minutes of camera work that's truly that bad.<br /><br />It's not particularly scary, but it is disturbing at times. There are one or two characters who don't come across as believable at all and the soundtrack does get tiring at times, but overall it was put together cleaner than a lot of camcorder movies. | negative |
Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2) | negative |
"Five Characters In Search of An Exit" clearly has to be one of the more clever and better "Twilight Zone" episodes ever made because of it's abstract ideas and thoughtful plan where the characters have to search to discover identity and it ends as a surprise. You have a military major, a female dancer, bag pipe player, a clown, and hobo who all awake together in the bottom of a wall and none know how they got there and they don't know who they are. So the episode starts out with very interesting drama and suspense from the very beginning making it so soul searching for the viewers interest to want to know the characters true identity and backgrounds. Plus the episode even adds more intrigue for the fact it places different types of characters with different views and lifestyles all with one goal in common to escape and find identity, and peace that's very compelling for the viewer. Only in the end I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen a surprise fall happens! Proving that many times you might want to stay where you are away in your little sheltered world and be away from the masses of other people's world as you will see the characters are loved in a different way by people in a much different form. Really great and cleverly done a real shock twist surprise that makes the viewer see the unexpected and cruel fate that happens sometimes when you search and seek. | positive |
Gentleman Jim not really a boxing film. It is a vehicle for Errol Flynn as Jim Corbett. But having said that, the boxing scenes are a real eye-opener to the modern viewer. There are no 12 round, points decisions here.<br /><br />Errol Flynn plays the Irish bank clerk who gets a shot at the heavyweight world title. Flynn is well suited to the role of suave but unpredictable Corbett. His opponent John Sullivan is still better however, a bruiser of the old school played by Ward Bond.<br /><br />The theme of the film is a man pushing for his big chance. Corbett leaves his mundane life behind and builds a new persona as Gentleman Jim. Jim is a chancer who can adapt to any social environment. He is a liar and an egotist. Sullivan the heavyweight boxing champion is portrayed as a simple brute but his honesty and sportsmanship gives a certain contrast to the main character.<br /><br />There is action and excitement aplenty and a wonderful ending with the requisite redemption for all. And Errol Flynn gets the girl. | positive |
Anyone who has seen the trailer for this film would be forgiven for thinking this film is an out and out comedy. In actual fact it's a light-hearted, though not overly funny, romp about a couple of highwaymen.<br /><br />There are numerous faults in the film. The script and plot are weak and the love aspect of the story is strangely dull. Yet despite all this it is quite enjoyable, thanks largely to the two leads Robert Carlyle and Jonny Lee Miller. These two fine actors, Carlyle in particular, are always good to watch and here there exists a good chemistry between them.<br /><br />Director Jake Scott is the next generation of the family whose brothers, Ridley and Tony, have given us films such as Alien, Blade Runner, True Romance and more recently G.I. Jane and Enemy of The State. His debut is directed with energy and enthusiasm, which keeps the film fizzling along, although without the strong cast he assembled the results might not have worked as well.<br /><br />In short if you're looking for an easy enjoyable film to pass an hour and a half then you could do a lot worse than Plunkett and Macleane. If on the other hand you fancy something subtle, historically accurate and thought provoking, go elsewhere. 7/10. | positive |
An eye opening documentary about the 1993 siege of a religious sect compound near Waco, Texas. Seventy-six people, including sect leader, David Koresh, perished in a flaming inferno that destroyed the compound. There is still heated debate over how the fire started. Homicide or suicide? Can you still trust government ethics?<br /><br /> | positive |
I was very surprised how much I enjoyed this film. I thought it was funny, sexy, painful, and warm. Andie MacDowell's performance was nuanced and vulnerable. For once, the director of a MacDowell film did not make her beauty another character in the film. The romance between Kate and her young man is lovely to watch and it plays out very well. Her relationship with her friends is both a thorn and a balm in her life. Imelda Stalinson, who has been a MVP in so many British films, does a great job in this. There is some tragedy in this but I think the film is saved in the end by the brilliant acting, clean direction, and witty writing.The film quality is excellent and the music is good, too, though unavailable on sound track. | positive |
There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.<br /><br />When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.<br /><br />There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.<br /><br />Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k. | positive |
Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder. <br /><br />There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.<br /><br />There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there. <br /><br />The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure. <br /><br />Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period. | negative |
You could get into the nitty gritty of this film, and say how it couldn't happen, or how could the main character just walk into offices and start using computers etc without someone noticing and really pick the movie to bits...or you could just sit back with a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the story and the acting. Personally, I prefer the latter, I live real life and watch the news with all it's doom and gloom, and so would much rather be entertained by my movies, and see the bad guys get their just rewards. Don't take it too seriously, and you can thoroughly enjoy this film. | positive |
Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. What else can I say. Kate Jackson must have been desperate to direct. May be she should go back to acting...on second thought she was a bad actress to. Who would put money in to producing something this bad. I like anti-Christ movies and usually have a good laugh and the odd scare but this one is just Bad Bad Bad. The acting by the stars was worse than what you find on a soap opera. The special effects, if you can call them that, where laughable. I would not be surprised if you played the scenes in slow motion you would see the tubes the blood shoots out of. We had to turn the disc off after only 30 minutes. This so called movies original prints should be destroyed, all disc' and tapes destroyed and all the people associated with the making of the movie have to pay back money to the people that rented the movie. Then those people should never be allowed to act, direct or film any thing but their own home movies. | negative |
There's nothing amazing about 'The Amazing Mr Williams'. Part of this movie's problem is its lead actor Melvyn Douglas. He was a lousy actor and lazy with it. For most of his career, he allowed his good looks, a glib manner and (usually, but not in this movie) some fine scriptwriting to make up for his lack of acting ability. I disliked Douglas as an actor before I knew anything about him as a person; I've learnt enough about him to know that I also despise his politics. I'll give Melvyn Douglas credit for one thing: his chromosomes did produce the incredibly talented and sexy actress Illeana Douglas.<br /><br />Melvyn Douglas made this movie right after the brilliant 'Ninotchka' ... talk about a comedown! 'The Amazing Mr Williams' is allegedly a comedy, but I never laughed. Douglas plays a plainclothes detective on the homicide squad, named Kenny Williams. I never heard of a police detective named Kenny, but if they called him Kenneth Williams ... well, what a carry-on. The whole city is in a panic because a serial killer is going about, killing women. No motive is given for this; he just likes to kill women. The mayor (Jonathan Hale, better than usual) calls Williams on the carpet to account for his failure to catch the killer.<br /><br />SPOILERS APPROACHING. The cheap, vulgar, untalented and unattractive Joan Blondell plays the mayor's secretary. (She doesn't sound literate enough to file a letter, much less type one.) Blondell and Douglas squabble like a cat and a dog, so it's blatantly obvious they're going to end up together.<br /><br />At this movie's lowest point, Melvyn Douglas decides to draw out the killer by dressing up as a woman. You do NOT want to see Melvyn Douglas in drag! He's well over six foot, and he doesn't even shave off that annoying moustache. The similarly-'tashed William Powell was an actor very similar in type to Melvyn Douglas (but much more talented). When Powell disguised himself as a woman in 'Love Crazy', he had the integrity to shave off his moustache: a genuine sacrifice, as Powell needed it to grow in again for his next role. But Melvyn Douglas brings nothing whatever to his role in this movie, not even a razor. He plays his drag scenes with the same annoying smirk he used throughout the bulk of his career.<br /><br />On the plus side, 'The Amazing Mr Williams' has several of those splendid supporting players who made Hollywood's movies of the '30s so delightful. Edward Brophy is brilliant here, touching and funny as a criminal who gets an unlikely furlough from his life sentence. The dyspeptic Donald MacBride is fine as a cop who gets mistaken for the killer, and is nearly lynched by a mob. Ruth Donnelly is splendid: as usual for her, but here she gets a chance to show her talents away from her usual orbit on the Warner Brothers backlot. Jimmy Conlin, Luis Alberni and the grinning Dave Willock are all fine in small roles. Barbara Pepper (whom I usually dislike) is good here too. The grossly unpleasant Maude Eburne gets some screen time; I always loathe her, and she gives the same performance in every film ... but some audiences enjoy Eburne's one-note performance very much, for reasons I can't fathom.<br /><br />If you're familiar with Hollywood character actors of the 1930s, and the roles they tended to play, one glance at IMDb's cast list will tell you who the murderer is. That's the problem with 'The Amazing Mr Wiliams': everything is too obvious. I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10. | negative |
Warner Brothers produced this 3D extravaganza that was the biggest commercial success for westerns in 1953. Guy Madison leads a band of guardhouse soldiers and misfits to rescue two white women being held by Indians, which essentially all there is to this film. The 3D format was in its early stages as a Hollywood gimmick to compete with the growing popularity of home television, and the effects work very well here. The rescuers make off with the ladies and are pursued by the Indians until the white men make their stand at an island in a creek bed. The Indian weaponry comes at the audience non-stop throughout, and a spray of tobacco juice aimed at a rattler is thrown in for good measure. Madison was quite popular as television's Wild Bill Hickock and is good as a displaced cattle rancher who is given his thankless task by the army. For all the film's polish and presentation, the movie was made in just three days. | positive |
One night I stumbled upon this on the satellite station Bravo.Initially out of curiosity i decided to watch it.To be perfectly honest i wasn't disappointed.The main character is beautiful and her body is shown off well.You would think her talents would be wasted as a executioner but apparently not after watching the whole film!My only real gripe is the acting of the supporting cast particularly the actor who plays Melnik.Christ its bad!The prison guard Hank is woeful too.All he ever does is get drunk and make ill attempted passes at his co-guard Wanda though fortunately for us the viewer and for Hank he gets down and dirty with Wanda near the end. The music used is pretty tense and creates the perfect atmosphere for the executions. This movie is well watching alone for the beautiful,talented and very sexy Jennifer Thomas | positive |
It aired on TV yesterday, so I decided to check it out. This was one of the last Bruce Timm/Paul Dini DTV projects related to their old 1992 Batman the Animated Series, after that Jeff Matsuda came along and re-imagined Batman with his new The Batman series, but anyway, the story of this new Batman movie centers around the appearance of a new vigilante known as Batwoman, however Batman feels the need to stop her because of her extreme methods, and also in the meantime take down The Pengiun and Ruphert Thorn who both are secretly working with Carlton Duquesne(who's having family troubles) and another villain(which is later revealed in the movie) on a weapons smuggling operation,they also put a bounty on the Batwoman. The question is: who is this mysterious Batwoman and is it possible that they could be more then one? It's up to Batman to solve this mystery and stop Penguin's latest operation. For an animated movie, it has a fairly complex plot and a serious tone, which is good. Another plus was the complete redesign of the Penguin who looks much more like the sophisticated Mob Boss we're used to seeing in the comics, unlike his previous designs that borrowed elements from Tim Burton vision of Pengium(sewer rat and circus freak). Even though the movie contains a love subplot it's never carried that far and doesn't derail the movie like say, Batman Forever. The voice acting is standard quality for these direct-to-video projects(if only Batman: Mask of Phantasm took this route), Kevin Conroy still shines as Batman/Bruce Wayne. And like I said despite running for some very short 80 minutes, it manages to make a pretty good(and complex) storyline complete with a few minor twists and bucket loads of action. There are a few downsides, however, Nightwing is nowhere to be seen, and I'm sure Barbara Gordon and Bruce Wayne don't click as a couple, even though is just referenced, Tim Drake(aka Robin) does very little in the movie and to be quite frank, I was never a big fan of Paul Dini and Bruce Timm's Batman character design(especially in their Batman shows post-BTAS), this The New Adventures of Batman and Robin, well, it kinda makes Batman look fat then rather a well-built bulked up individual(kinda like the Jeff Matsuda character model from The Batman). Bruce Wayne seems a bit awkward, those blue eyes make him look more like Clark Kent then Bruce(though it's true they do look very much alike). Another downside is Rupert Throne(no explanation as to why he is in this deal, but it's safe to say he's has goons and what's a cut of the deal) which does very little more then hang out with the Penguim or get himself hurt every time he points a gun at someone(count how many times this happens in the movie and you'll be surprised. Overall, a good Batman animated movie, worth at least a rental. | positive |
On paper, this movie would sound incredibly boring. The idea of a 75-year-old man traveling the country-side on a riding mower certainly doesn't have much appeal to it, but the real power behind the film is its charm and its intelligence. Writers will not find a better study of what makes a movie work than "The Straight Story."<br /><br />The perfect example of this is a scene in which Alvin meets a runaway teenage girl. She's pregnant and afraid of what her parents would do if they found out. Alvin tells her a story about his own kids, long ago. He had them each take a stick and break it, which they could easily do. Then he had them bundle the sticks and try to break them. "That bundle," he said, "is family." So many other movies would feel compelled to continue and make sure we knew that an individual could be broken but together the members were stronger. "The Straight Story" realizes that we're smart enough to understand this and simply leaves us to contemplate the thought and draw our own conclusions.<br /><br />Alvin's journey across Iowa is full of such refreshingly un-Hollywood character interactions. Each interaction is full of warmth and humor, and Alvin is so cute riding his mower that we can't help but smile as he makes his way to Wisconsin to make peace with his brother, Lyle, who has suffered a stroke. And the simplicity of the final scene emphasizes that the real story here is not the destination but the journey. It's a journey in which Alvin shares his life with everyone he meets--to their benefit and ours. It's a slow, simple, relaxing ride meant to remind us of all that we've lost with the urbanization of America.<br /><br />"The Straight Story" is the rare live-action "G"-rated movie that truly should not be missed. Grade: A | positive |
The worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all. | negative |
One of the funniest, most romantic, and most musical movies ever; definitely worth renting/buying especially if you have a taste for older style of cinematography.<br /><br /> The animals and the songs alone will make you smile while watching the movie. A definite must for Madonna fans. :o) | positive |
This show is just another bad comedy which will probably be cancelled after two seasons. It's not just that the jokes are sexist/racist/homophobic, they're also not funny and clichéd. In the first episode the Father said something along the lines of ' I wish women didn't go out and get jobs and have the same rights as men blah blah blah' That really helps attitudes huh? Then he was making fun of his son saying he was weird. What parent says their kid is weird? So overall this show is boring, unoriginal, offencive, clichéd and most of all NOT FUNNY. Yeah American Dad's offencive. But it does also make you laugh and is obviously taking the micky. Thats the difference. | negative |
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! | negative |
According to "Lucien Rebatet" in his "Histoire de la Musique" (Robert Lafont, BOUQUINS 1973 page 338) Beethoven's character was not very compatible with women. He had quite a number of "Platonic Passions" with female members of the "Vienese Aristocracy" to whom he dedicated some "sonatas". But Musicians , even composers did not qualify for Husbands of "Fine Ladies". Haydn was a "servant" of Prinz Von Esterhazy, Mozart died from drink or Poison and Bethoven was according to Rebatet a frequent customer of "street prostitutes" in Vienna. A British biographer, Newman says that Beethoven contracted syphilis, before he was 40. That he became deaf because of that, is possible, but not certain.<br /><br />The Ninth Symphony was premiered on May 7, 1824 in the Kärntnertortheater in Vienna, along with the Consecration of the House Overture and the first three parts of the Missa Solemnis. This was the composer's first on-stage appearance in twelve years; the hall was packed. Although the performance was directed by Michael Umlauf the theater's Kapellmeister, Beethoven shared the stage with him quiet.<br /><br />So what remains of this "Female Fantasy". Ed Harris interpretation and characterization are quite good, but too linear, based on the Painting by Ferninand Waldmüller date 1823. I have it in front of me. It shows a man that despises (perhaps hates) the World. With good reason. | negative |
Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.<br /><br />It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.<br /><br />The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.<br /><br />Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
As was to be expected, A Mazursky film made in the 70s would be counter-culture, sympathetic towards the hippies - and have a lot of hippies in it - and, naturally, it is childishly anti-authoritarian (e.g. the scene on the Mexican border, when Sutherland provokes a custom's officer by showing little respect and then accuses the latter of making him open his luggage only because he (Sutherland) has long hair). The constant left-wing dribble could have gotten on my nerves had I not been prepared for it beforehand; Sutherland muses aloud to his family and friends about potential movie ideas for his next film, and most of these ideas are either about blacks or Indians (needless to say, he would be welcomed with open arms in today's Hollywood). One of his movie ideas is about a black uprising in Beverly Hills - a race-war, so-to-speak, in the middle of L.A.. This is the kind of nonsense that Mazursky thinks about when writing scripts for his movies. Fortunately, some of Sutherland's hippie friends make fun of this black-revolution premise, and the resulting dialogue isn't bad; a little later, the Jewish guy makes a crack about Sutherland making a movie about "masturbation and the black problem", when the latter starts talking about masturbation. Another funny moment is when Sutherland's older daughter performs some PC crap on stage with her white school-mates, and they all say: "We, the black people of the Republic of South Africa...".<br /><br />There is always a certain amount of self-indulgence when Hollywood makes a movie about Hollywood - especially when it's Hollywood making a movie about Hollywood discussing Hollywood doing movies. Now, that's very, very self-indulgent, indeed. The scene with Fellini (playing himself) is more amusing than annoying, though. Mazursky throws in the standard flower-children and anti-Vietnam bullshit into the soup, and also pokes fun at corporate Hollywood, but he was/is just as much a part of the "phony Hollywood" (lyrics from that song in the surreal war segment) as anyone else; I am pretty sure that he, too, makes phony small-talk in Beverly Hills parties and grins fakely while shaking the hands of people whom he either doesn't know or like, but whose money he wants badly for his next (left-wing) project. As for his hair: he has the worst hair I've seen in a very long time (on film or elsewhere); it's sort of like the kind of long hair that a middle-aged accountant would have if he grew it long. The film remains relatively interesting in spite of its aimlessness, but it bogs down somewhat into tedium in the last third. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Donald Sutherland (and other Hollywood actors), contact me by e-mail. | negative |
This movie has one of the best club scenes, very good soundtrack (if you like techno/trance music)<br /><br />some situations (As the main character Carl begins to take drugs for example) are a little off reality, but the plot is entertaining, but the characters are all a little shallow...<br /><br />I'd not recommend you to see this film if you don't like techno music<br /><br />For the plot/acting alone this movie is a 4/10, with the really cool special effects and the club scenes and soundtrack it's a 7/10, but if you would want to go to the movies just to hear nice tracks and grab a little club feeling, it's a 10/10.<br /><br />the special effects are sometimes hidden, sometimes clearly visible. (i.e. fast moving clouds/sun/moon, morphing background, morphing cuts)<br /><br />I for one enjoyed it very much, a shame there was no dancefloor in the cinema ;) | positive |
One of the funniest movies made in recent years. Good characterization, plot and exceptional chemistry make this one a classic | positive |
i think it is a nice movie; i think it is a very romanian movie through scenery and atmoshpere; i think it was not intended to be sensual (sensuality is a result, not a purpose); i think it is very natural; i think it is humane; i think it was interesting; i think the actors never made me think... waw lame acting (they are not Sean Connory & co) neither is the film a block buster, they are like the movie... normal ppl that can act...; i think the movie reached its intention; i think it made me feel things (or feel them again :) ); i think i'm not objective;<br /><br />i really enjoyed it... that i know. | positive |
This was surprisingly intelligent for a TV movie, and quite true to my own experience of bulimia. It was actually well-researched, and I can only assume it was written by someone who's gone through a similar experience, because it had all the little details. The characters were quite well-drawn, and the performances by Mare Winningham and Alison Lohman were great. I think what I like most was that they made them specific and smart, and there was no dumbing down of the reasons for Beth's bulimia (it wasn't some "diet gone out of control, caused by the pressures placed on girls by the media, pressures we're not actually going to address..."). Her mother wasn't completely clueless - too often on television they'll take an issue that EVERYONE has some awareness of and try to tell us that their protagonists are the last remaining people on earth who don't ("Diabetes? What's that? Oh, my world is all askew, doctor, please explain it all to me as if I'm a small child", etc). It was brilliant that her mother was a psychologist and even she didn't see the signs. And the scenes where Beth was throwing up weren't OVERLY melodramatic and sensationalist, and concentrated more on bulimics' need for secrecy, and their out-of-controlness. The scene where Beth tells her mother she's bulimic would've made me cry if there hadn't been other people in the room.<br /><br />Okay, so I liked those bits. What didn't work for me so well was the ending, which headed back to the TV movie territory we know and don't particularly love, but I guess they had to wrap it up. "You, too, can cure your child's eating disorder, if you have lots and lots of money and live in America..."<br /><br />And can I just say again that I really like Mare Winningham. She's great. | positive |
Really the tale of two cocky brothers and their respective falls from grace (via drug addiction) and later redemption. One brother, a self-proclaimed genius played by James Franco is your typical sensitive but intelligent man-child. The other brother is a hard-working future doctor who becomes less judgmental as he himself falls prey to addiction while dealing with the stress of living up to his family's expectations for both children. Not too heavy handed as drug fables are want to be, and all in all a pretty realistic sketch of the family dynamics that drug problems bring about. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in such character studies and commend James Franco for his efforts in what was obviously a labor of love. | positive |
Director Jeremiah Checheck who brought us big budget debacles like "The Avengers" and the remake of "Diabolique" has directed this ripoff of the Die Hard concept, done on - what looks like - a Blair Witch budget. <br /><br />A California nuclear reactor is overtaken by Arab terrorists. But - are you ready? - the terrorists aren't Arab; they're really disgruntled American soldiers masquerading as Arabs! We find out that they don't really intend to blow up the reactor just make a statement. We're not sure what the statement is but never mind. So there's really no threat. But then one of the terrorists decides to go it alone and actually blow up the plant because he's kind of crazy. So maybe there is a threat after all. But the army goes in and all the bad guys are killed. So there was no threat. Oh, and a good guy is killed too. Let that be a lesson to everybody.<br /><br />If all of this sounds muddled and kinda of a waste of time then you got the idea of what watching Meltdown is all about.<br /><br />The script never bothers to introduce the characters or to even give any personal details that might flesh them out or emotionally involve the audience. So we're left with one dimensional characters: the-expert-that-nobody-will-listen-to; the-trigger-happy-sergeant; the-slimy-politicians; the-dweeby-Engineers. The story skips from one cliché incident to the next in a formula composite of practically every action movie you've ever seen. But at nearly every turn, just when we think something may be at stake the script flinches and we find out there's actually nothing to worry about.<br /><br />Like Die Hard, there's an police officer who's on the inside, unbenownst to the bad guys. The big twist is that the cop here is....A WOMAN! Oh and she's injured too. But not that bad, just enough to make her wince a couple times. Oh and instead of the walkie talkie that Bruce Willis had this cop has a magic cell phone that works everywhere...even underground! When he's not yelling at everybody else Bruce Greenwood - his jaw made out of granite - tries to soothe her over the walkie talkie. He even makes a joke once but we're afraid his face might crack. After all, this is serious business.<br /><br />But mostly it's scene after scene of people arguing: the Military expert is arguing to wait it out (his reasoning doesn't seem particularly sound but he's supposed to be the smart guy in this movie so okaaaay); the people at the White House argue with him; the army sergeant argues with him too; the nice Pakistani Nuclear Engineer argues with the main terrorist. The dialogue is absolutely B Movie all the way and lines like, "stop the broadcast! STOP THE BROADCAST!!!" may have you in rolling off your sofa as you wonder if the characters are actually referring to this silliness.<br /><br />Maybe to compensate for the lack of production quality the camera-work is kept jittery in that faux documentary 21 Grams style that's supposed to lend immediacy and energy to the scenes but the way it's indiscriminately and amateurishly applied here it's downright annoying; even pretentious. Further attempts to ratchet up the tempo are made with the inclusion of nonsensical black and white footage that's randomly intercut with the main action. But this, too, is pretentious and annoying in that Blair Witch kinda way. In short, the stylistic attempts look very amateurish.<br /><br />The music lives up to the visuals - it's synthy and cheap sounding. Sort of like a porn movie but with less melody and lots more heart beat sounds. The graphic treatment is howlingly bad too: cheesy graphics in huge red font scream out to us "9:28 pm" as though the timeclock actually makes some kind of difference.<br /><br />Meltdown may work as a marketing concept but it's clear that the script was a second thought. FX - part of Fox - put this cheesy production together and dropped several million dollars on it. Now THAT'S what I call a meltdown! | negative |
This movie was one of the rolling on the floor laughing movies I have ever seen. Danny De Vito plays Owen perfectly. Momma is excellently portrayed, and was one of the highlights of the movie.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie it starts of differently then what you would expect. Larry is trying to write a book and is having some troubles. Larry teaches a writing class and Owen tagged after Larry trying to get him to read his story. Owen eventually asks Larry to kill his mother, and in return Owen would kill Larry's ex-wife. The whole movie was really hilarious.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is at the end when Owen writes "Throw Momma from the Train". Larry gets furious because he just wrote a book of similar plot. It turns out that Owen wrote a children's pop-up book.<br /><br />I would really recommend this movie. I gave it a 10. | positive |
This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the right sound and/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end. Kudos to the writer/director and all involved.<br /><br />This is my first review of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it. | positive |
Not knowing what this film was about, I checked it out at the video store and after seeing it, I enjoyed it. Little seen multi-genre flick from director Bernard Rose (Candyman, Immortal Beloved). Great story and characters. As a fan of Glenne Healdy's, I was surprised of her british accent. The only exception for this film was the ending. However, it is worth the rent. | positive |
This film ain't half bad. It may be a little long at times, but carried along by beautiful scenery, an IMMENSELY beautiful love letter and great actors, you forget time and enjoy. The grand prize, however, goes to Blythe Danner and Geraldine McEwan as..........well that would be telling, but they are just GREAT! | positive |
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile. | negative |
What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France | positive |
Yesterday I finally satisfied my curiosity and saw this movie. My knowledge of the plot was limited to about 60 seconds of the trailer, but I had heard some good critics which caused my expectations to increase.<br /><br />As I saw the movie, those untied pieces had been combined in a story that was becoming quite intriguing, with some apparently inexplicable details. But in the end, everything is disclosed as a simple succession of events of bad luck, "sorte nula" in Portuguese. Above everything, I felt that the story made sense, and everything fits in it's place, properties of a good script.<br /><br />I must also mention the soundtrack, which helps the creation of an amazing environment.<br /><br />And if you think of the resources Fernando Fragata used to make this film, I believe it will make many Hollywood producers envious... | positive |
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can! | negative |
Prior to seeing Show People, my impression of silent comedy was essentially slapstick, and slapstick only. I could not imagine how screen comedy could be possible without relying heavily on spoken word or numerous pratfalls. But this masterful film proved me wrong. Davies, in my view, was probably the greatest comedic actress to come along prior to Lucille Ball. I mention Lucy primarily because Davies' mannerisms and facial expressions reminded me of her to the point that I wonder if Davies wasn't one of Ball's primary influences. This is coming from a 21 year old who had never before seen silent comedy, and I must say that no matter how much of the period-specific references you actually get (I didn't, apparently), you will not be bored by this movie. You will probably even laugh more than you would at most talkie comedies. This is not only my favorite silent comedy, but easily among my ten favorite comedies of all time. | positive |
Overall, the Dad's Army movie is very funny, although the humour isn't quite as catchy and sparkly as in the TV and radio series. So where does this leave us, the viewers? If you've never seen Dad's Army then the movie is a good way of bringing yourself up to speed and getting hooked on the mad world of Walmington o/S. The downside is that you might not "get it" because, as I said, the humour in the movie is a bit on the stolid side.<br /><br />For Dad's Army buffs the movie holds nothing new as the story is more or less a cutup of the TV series, but it's a unique chance of seeing your favourites in "high def" as compared to the shitty quality of the BBC video recordings.<br /><br />The movie also features what must be the lamest holdup sequence in the history of the universe. I can't make up my mind if that's a positive or a negative, though. | positive |
The Ancient Mariner is a truly classic piece of work, as the original poem was/is. The context/setting with the old mariner himself is fine, clear, and without pretense. The artistic work that accompanies the reading of the poem fits perfectly the time/period of the setting and of the work itself, carrying the audience into the period with a still, yet moving accompaniment, using excellent still-movement strategies only well conquered by the pre-MTV era producers and much less apparent in more current works. (MTV brought to television and video a static movement that races through, often irrelevant cuts, from theme to theme without forward movement and without clear relationships to theme or storyline.) The voice, intonation and vitality of Redgrave's reading brings this touching poem to life with all its fear, strife and pain. In addition, the smooth movement of the video emphasizes the cadence and occasional monotone (in this case a positive mood under the theme of the story itself)of the author's rendition of the ancient mariner's sad and spooky tale. This is a must for any love of classic poetry, the sea, a tall tale, that almost rings true, and a story that has left a lasting impact on our world and culture. Who does not understand the meaning of an "albatross"? or the concept of "water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink?" A truly fine experience. Thank you Mr. DaSilva for bringing this to life for us, never to be forgotten. | positive |
Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video. | negative |
For those of you who have read Rohinton Mistry's highly respected novel, this film will definitely impress you, because of how honorable an adaptation it is . With the exception of one minor subplot, Sturla Gunnarson's feature film debut is an almost dead-on recreation of the book (down to the last line).<br /><br />For those of you who have not read the novel, this movie might be a little tricky. It is certainly not a large cinematic drama story. Instead it has a strong element of realism to it, but I would not have it any other way. The best way to describe Such a Long Journey to movie fans would be to say that it is a small scale, Hindu version of 'Fiddler On The Roof'. Instead of a Jewish/Russian milkman, the protagonist Gustad Noble is a banker in 1970's Bombay during the time of the Muslim/Hindi war with Pakistan. He is forced to deal with a number of unexpected problems in his life, including his sick daughter, his individualist eldest son, a distant friend who gets him involved with some dirty money, and an unhealthy neighborhood. The Ending is not a happy one, nor is it a sad one, but that is essentially what realism involves. <br /><br />Such a Long Journey is a fine little movie, but if you want to see it, then good luck finding it. Unlike the novel, it has received very little release. | positive |
This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak. | negative |
The plot of the story and the performance of the lead actors are very much down-to-earth! The romance between two teen-age boys on the screen was done in good taste. You can easily relate to their emotions if you are one but if you are not one, you can appreciate the kind of love the film is trying to impart. | positive |
In Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.<br /><br />SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.<br /><br />The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity. | negative |
I really enjoyed this Minghella epic, thought not quite so much as "The English Patient" (a modern-day classic). The first 20 minutes or so feel awkward, but as Inman (Jude Law) embarks on the journey back to his love Ava (Nicole Kidman), the film picks up in leaps and bounds and it becomes a very memorable, thoughtful romantic drama. Apparently it is fashionable to hate Kidman at the moment, but I don't agree at all, and she does well here. I actually think that the romance between Inman and Ada is weakly developed in the script (they really don;t get much screen time together to develop a relationship), but Law and Kidman give it their all and convince. Ada's journey is the crux of the film- she becomes a strong woman who can bear almost anything. Zellweger at first seems all wrong as Ruby, but she grows on you after all and sparkles in many of her later scenes. The film has beautiful photography and set design, but never really captures the true feel of a period piece. Jack White, in particular, has long straggly hair and a pale rocker's complexion that look completely out of place with the setting. Cillian Murphy fans will enjoying seeing the talented Irish actor in an early bit part, and Natalie Portman actually proves she can act in probably the film's most striking sequence. It's a pity that in "The Other Boleyn Girl" she's so inadequate. | positive |
It's hard to criticize this movie, because I dislike the story itself, and no amount of good acting would have saved it. Think "Raising Arizona" with a mean streak. The acting is passable, but Jennifer Tilly is way over the top (yet not enough to make this a nice camp film) as usual, coming in somewhere between "Misery" and a sarcastic DMV employee. The rest of the cast have their brows perpetually knitted in consternation, either from the stress of their parts or the stress of the whole futile exercise. A real degrading few hours of film. Darryl Hannah spends most of the movie weeping too hard to be understood. I wish I could tell you how it ended but I walked out, sorry. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.