review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I was expecting to view a more exploitation style of film but unfortunately this turned out to be just a badly made low budget action flick that just doesn't have the talent for that. Story is about a very beautiful woman named Teri Marshall (Heather Thomas) who's boyfriend Rick (Jeffrey Combs) works for a secret agency and he has invented a motorcycle that is bullet proof and can shoot lasers and rockets and has a helmet that can shoot lasers as well. The head of the agency Bosarian (Martin Landau) has made a 5 million dollar deal to sell it and sends two hired thugs to kill Rick and Teri and collect the bike. A tall blond thug named Rolf (Dar Robinson) and his partner Hanna (Dawn Wildsmith) manage to kill Rick but Teri survives. While at home she discovers a video tape that Rick left describing his invention that helps Teri on what to do next.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Teri is being chased by several agents and she gets caught and tortured but doesn't talk about where a piece of the motorcycle that is needed but she gets help from a federal agent named Waters (Martine Beswick) where they end up using the motorcycle for a bloody shoot-out.<br /><br />This film is directed by Fred Olen Ray who has made his career out of making ultra-low budget exploitation films but he made a dire mistake here by leaving out the exploitation aspect and trying to make an action film. Aside from a quick shower scene at the beginning there is no nudity and the usual titillation that viewers are accustomed to seeing in a Ray film is no where to be found. I don't think anyone was expecting Thomas to get naked but she doesn't wear one sexy outfit. Not that it stopped me from ogling her in those tight jeans and admiring her near perfect form but Ray really blew it in this case. Like all of his films the cast is fun to watch and many familiar faces have roles like Robert Quarry, Huntz Hall, Troy Donahue, Tim Conway Jr., Michael Reagan, and Russ Tamblyn. Stuntman Dar Robinson died shortly after this was made and it's his last acting effort and the film is dedicated to him. You have to wonder why Landau would waste him time with such junk like this but I was interested in the casting of Combs in a very rare romantic role. Is Thomas any good in this film? Who cares! I think she showed that she could have become a popular "B" movie starlet if she wanted but it never did happen. Ray wastes everyone's time with this effort although the cast is fun to watch but he left out the elements that make him an enjoyable filmmaker. | negative |
Decent action scenes, but the movie is saddled with a slow, convoluted storyline, nearly non-existent dialogue that leads to minimal character development, and a seriously horrible storyline...<br /><br />Did I mention that the storyline made no sense? But, in its defense, the action scenes were impressive enough, even if they leave you scratching your head as to why they just happened.<br /><br />There's not much else to say about the movie. It's a slick, mindless action adventure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like watching a worse version of the Matrix and skipping all the storyline and dialogue. | negative |
MEN OF HONOR features Cuba Gooding Jr., in what is probably his best performance to date. He plays Carl Brashear, a man of towering courage and heroism. He's a poor dirt farmer from the South, who wants to become a Navy diver- but has problems because of his race. The head of the diving school, played by Robert DeNiro, is a racist redneck that nonetheless grows to respect Brashear. The film is about how Brashear has to concur the nearly insurmountable odds, not once but twice. The performances are what make this film special. Gooding is great, and DeNiro, the best actor in movie history, gives a towering performance- his best dramatic work in years. Charlize Theron gives another solid performance as DeNiro's much younger wife. The film lays on the patriotism a little too strong (though no where near the level it was in THE PATRIOT), and a few of the characters are just one dimensionally bad (Hal Holbrook's Mr. Pappy is just so evil), but the film is a rarity among films today. It's uplifting and uncynical. A wonderful film. | positive |
I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here. | negative |
At least for me. I have been following the career of Mr. Almdovar since the beginning and I was not crazy about this film. I think Penelope Cruz was miscast, the type of woman she is portraying does not look that good, she makes the character unbelievable. Also, the singing scene was just weird. I do not get the point and the lip-sync was awful.<br /><br />As Spaniard, another thing that drove me nuts are the accents. Why people coming from the same place have such a different accent? The difference between the two sisters is notable and makes no sense. And the village? are we in 2007 or 1950? I found myself trying to explain to my American husband that many of the things in the movie are "old school", things are not like that anymore.<br /><br />I was expecting more but this time Mr.Almodovar did not deliver, at least for me. I am not saying that Miss Cruz does a bad job, I am saying that she does not belong there, not portraying that character. | negative |
Ali G earned his fame on the small screen - though the big screen has not lost him any kudos either. Ali G Indahouse is a hilarious laugh-a-second fun fest - just like on the small screen. He has lost none of his character or stupidity at all, and behind all that - none of the film is brainless fluff either. A human side to Ali is revealed during the film, the idea of Ali G running for PM is a brilliant, fresh and funny one - and the incessant stupidity of Staines' gangster man is mixed well with the stern, harsh world that is politics. The film is also full of brilliant new characters - and instead of just interview after interview, we get a proper comedy film that never gets repetitive or boring. So why didn't I give it ten stars? Well, the ending was funny, but also botched and failed - none of it made sense. And in parts, the film became offensive in trying to be funny - but that's Ali G for you - if it isn't offensive, it isn't itself, and it is totally and utterly ruined. Ali G's big screen debut was a success in my belief, and should have got into the 6-7 average rating range on IMDb. But it could have got worse as well, and people are bound to have mixed opinions, especially on a film such as this.<br /><br />On the whole, Ali G Indahouse is hilarious British comedy at its best - and funniest, and most clever. A great job! 9/10 | positive |
I loved this film when I was little. Today at 17 it is one of my all time favorite animated films. Beautiful animation and appealing characters are just two of the things to like about this film. Although many people might not enjoy some of the songs, most of them are well-done and go along with the story. It focuses on Charlie, a roguish handsome German Shepard who may seem unlikable to some at first... but eventually will win you over.<br /><br />Not a kiddie film by any means. Often very dark and frightening at times. A treat for Don Bluth fans and animation buffs. But do keep a tissue in handy. ADGTH never fails to make me cry and will do the same for those who are movie sensitive. Arguably one of the greatest non-Disney animated films of all time. Along with Watership Down and My Neighbor Totoro.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: A heavenly masterpiece. | positive |
I like The Wind and the Lion very much. It was a good movie. I thought that since I'm young and it was made so long ago I wouldn't like it all that good, but after I saw it, i was amazed of how good it was. My family liked it, my friends liked it, everyone I showed it to liked it. I liked it because it showed how Arabs and people in Morroco was treated during the Early 1900's, by the Germans, French, and even the Americans. If I was a High School History teacher, I would definitely show it to my student's, From a High Schooler's point of view. I give this movie a good 10 out of 10. My grandparents liked it so much they bought it for themselves. My little 3 year old cousins even sit down and watched it.<br /><br />Systemoffell | positive |
I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it. | negative |
This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week. | negative |
I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.<br /><br />At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.<br /><br />Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.<br /><br />To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men." | negative |
Mr Michael Jackson is an artistic phenomenon. His short movies, i.e. music videos, are simply the best. I do not care if I get a sane sci-fi feature from this man, but I do care to get a medley of his crazy dancing, shriek yells, cool crowd choreography, and some bits of CGI and animation. There also should be a few uninterrupted videos. Everything I've mentioned is here. Stupid plot and over-the-top "vanity fair" are not a problem when I witness Mr Michael Jackson in action. To me he will always be the ultimate king of music videos (not "king of pop" which sounds moronic, especially for us, Russians, because "pop" sounds like the Russian word for "arses" and MJ is definitely not "king of arses"). I can re-watch his best music videos (which are artistically beautiful) and I never get tired of them.<br /><br />My first impression of this film was "What is this...?" (bits of different videos, some drawn images, unsettling jumps from one theme to another, absence of any cohesive plot line, some kids fooling around, etc.) but as I watched it till the end, I could tell that it was great and really nothing like anything else shown on TV nowadays. What I like here too is that it never shows any shameful material and can be watched by kids easily.<br /><br />Without Mr Michael Jackson the universe of music videos would be rather poor. Even the best classic videos of other artists cannot come very close to the energetic hyperbole of MJ musical insanity and artistic quality. He knew how to get the audience of different ages and he knew how to remain a man with moral principles.<br /><br />When I see a proper DVD release with Mr Michael Jackson videos I know that it deserves to be purchased even if some clips have already appeared in some other previous release. "HIStory I", "HIStory II", and "Moonwalker" are all great, though only "Moonwalker" is more like one movie (with a solid "Smooth Criminal" theme, "paparazzi" topic, and a few weird spoofs and twists).<br /><br />Being no fan of MJ I can still give this "film... like no other" a solid 9 out of 10 (I've been hit by "Smooth Criminal" for sure and my major complains are the following: initial segments of the movie could have been dropped while the main "MJ anti-drug campaign" should have been given more "sky-rocketing insanity and stress" and there should have been more "moonwalking" itself of course). Thanks for attention. | positive |
As we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event. | negative |
Story of a strange love and a fall desire. Poem about beauty and his perfection, fear and touch.A slice of Visconti, Mahler and Mann. And an agonize Venice. Idon't know if it is a masterpiece, a poem or the reflection of a film director's world. It is, absolutely, a" memento mori". and a exploration of illusion. A old mirror of limits, signs and death's delicacy. A trip in an old space, nostalgic, cruel and splendid. "Death" is a Orfeu's trip copy in the immediate reality. And the essence is the music. A soft, sweet music, like honey or winter's fire. Like every regret and every sorrow. Like a refuge in deep solitude. Gustav is gay by accident. He is the Researcher of last form of God's presence. The Beauty, that beauty who gives life's sense, who is sin and virtue in same time, the gift of expectations and sufferings. He dies because he has right to hope, to believe in the reality of miracle and in his way. A victim? No way! Only Tadzio may give the freedom like an insignificant sacrifice. Who saw the sun can hope to live in same condition? | positive |
I'm 60 years old, a guitarist, (lead/rhythm), and over the last forty years, I've been in four bands, it's all there, the fights, the foul-ups, the rotten food, the worse accommodation, always travelling, little or no money, and every one was drunk or high. But, the clubs, the fans, and the music, made it all worth it! Just like Strange Fruit! I'm too damn old for it now, and the arthritis in the hands and hips mean no more rocking, but for the length of that video, it all came back, and it was all there! The birds, the brawls, and the booze! And I was young again! It's just like Billy Connolly's voice over, God likes that 70's stuff! Rock On Forever! | positive |
Let me start off by saying that I loved the original Grudge. It was bar none one of the scariest, most hair-rising experiences I've ever had in a filled movie theatre. I'm not kidding. Being a self-declared japanophile also made the flick look better in my eyes (if the setting had been changed to some American suburb I probably would've ended up hating the film).<br /><br />That said... this movie is a complete mess! I won't say it sucks, because A) the movie does have some good points, B) "it sucks" is the lamest put-down in the history of lame put-downs. So what does the movie have going for it? Well, for starters it has a pretty cool look: through filters and the use of bleak, washed-out colours, Takashi Shimizu almost recreates the downbeat, angst-ridden atmosphere of the original. A few scenes are genuinely shocking and unpredictable. Unfortunately, the rest of the film is just plain bad. Period.<br /><br />The story is all over the place, needlessly told Tarantino style, i.e. the scenes are out of chronological order. This technique is pointless in the case of this movie and it merely makes things more confusing. Frankly, a straightforward plot would've worked better. The original was also lacking plot-wise, but it did make sense and the film more than made up for its thin plot with lots of scares and a genuinely tense atmosphere. Grudge 2 has none of these elements and is just a waste of time.<br /><br />Let's not forget the TV-show acting skills which make the cast of the original Grudge look like Emily Watson and Katherine Hepburn. Simply put, the movie doesn't work. It's too slow, too dull, and just not scary enough to make up for the confusing plot (which adds nothing new to the story, by the way, so not even Grudge fans will be pleased).<br /><br />Oh, and what is it with the old man playing Japanese peek-a-boo on the bus?? Is this supposed to be comic relief? Artistic statement? Or what? | negative |
I once lived in the u.p and let me tell you what. I didn't have the foggyest idea what the heck this "bear walk " is. I never heard of it the whole 10 years I was up there. It was really funny in the beginning but went down hill quickly. | negative |
This film was made soon enough after Karen's passing that perhaps Richard Carpenter and the people closest to Karen were feeling a little guilty as to how they may have contributed to her health problems. As the years have passed (almost 25 to be exact) it must have gotten easier to deny any complicity. Richard has spent the years after Karen's death endlessly remixing and recompiling the recordings he made with her. He married his cousin, Mary, and from what I have read, it looks like he may be planning a next generation Carpenters with his children. He seems to have regretted making this film,and that may very well be why it is unavailable in any form. It seemed to me to be a fairly honest assessment of the tragically short life and incredible talent that was Karen Carpenter. | positive |
You know a movie is bad when the highlight of it is being able to see a brief moment of "Jeopardy!".<br /><br />The saddest thing about White Men Can't Jump is that it had tremendous potential. For several years, I lived in area quite like that portrayed in this film; racial tensions were high, and basketball meant everything to everyone. A film about the members of this "basketball culture" could have been very interesting, but the mediocre acting and poor script in White Men Can't Job left something to be desired.<br /><br />The movie's sequence of events is cyclical. First, Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball. He then returns to his home and lounges around with his girlfriend; and the process is repeated. Most stories build up to a climax of some kind, but the "climax" I saw was just another sequence in this repetition (this case being "Billy either wins or loses money by playing a game of basketball").<br /><br />In order for a plot to develop, some dilemma must be resolved; and this dilemma must be interesting if the film is going to be interesting as well. Apparently the writers of White Men Can't Jump forgot this rule, as the plot can be summarized as "Billy needs to pay the bills." I appreciated the change of pace from other formulaic sports movies, but -- I'm sorry -- this was just plain awful. I could have cared less if Billy got the money to pay the rent for his apartment.<br /><br />Despite all this, White Men Can't Jump is a successful film. Apparently some adamant sports fans will dismiss terrible writing for a few scenes with a basketball in them. Others, I'm sure, were lured by the big names playing the leading roles. This leaves me to wonder, if the cast was replaced entirely with previously unknown actors, and the basketball theme was replaced with lacrosse, would anyone have bothered watching this movie? I really don't think so.<br /><br />I'll give this movie two stars out of ten; the extra star is for the "Jeopardy!" scene, which kept me awake for a few minutes. Thanks, Trebek. | negative |
You just cant touch NRFPTP! The new crop is just awful. The jokes are not funny. Some of the troupe make me want to stop watching TV all together. Lorne - you have let your creation go down the toilet. The guests sometimes are good, the bands are mostly garbage. Weekend update, Seth has to tell the audience when to laugh.....Seth would get a proper reception in a Baghdad cafe though...Make sure Andy goes with him... The show has about 10 jokes in all and they just keep rehashing them over and over. Even the segments that are obviously not funny. Offending people has become the name of the game, but they cant even do that right. Just offensively. I am so disappointed with what has happened to the show, but now I also know it is safe to go OUT on a Saturday night! | negative |
Stephen King adaptation (scripted by King himself) in which a young family, newcomers to rural Maine, find out about the pet cemetery close to their home. The father (Dale Midkiff) then finds out about the Micmac burial ground beyond the pet cemetery that has powers of resurrection - only of course anything buried there comes back not quite RIGHT.<br /><br />Below average "horror" picture starts out clumsy, insulting, and inept, and continues that way for a while, with the absolute worst element being Midkiff's worthless performance. It gets a little better toward the end, with genuinely disturbing finale. In point of fact, the whole movie is really disturbing, which is why I can't completely dismiss it - at least it has SOMETHING to make it memorable. Decent supporting performances by Fred Gwynne, as the wise old aged neighbor, and Brad Greenquist, as the disfigured spirit Victor Pascow are not enough to really redeem film.<br /><br />King has his usual cameo as the minister.<br /><br />Followed by a sequel also directed by Mary Lambert (is it any wonder that she's had no mainstream film work since?).<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
The script seems to have been wholesale (ahem ahem, cough cough) "borrowed" from a certain other movie involving using a self-propelled manned drilling machine. Scene by scene, the two movies were almost identical. Just enough of the serial numbers filed off in this one to prevent a copyright infringement lawsuit.<br /><br />But other than that, I have to say I found this somewhat entertaining as I enjoy deep-underground-in-the-earth genre of movies. It's a little bit on the stupid side as far as the science goes, but if one is willing to squint one's eyes real hard and pretend one didn't notice that scientific gaffe here and there and all over, this movie is almost bearable. Far better than "Supernova" which was another flick that Luke Perry had a leading role in that was so dumb, dumb, dumb that nothing could save it. A note to movie makers: employ someone who knows something about the subject the movie deals with. It would be a very small part of the movie budget, but it would have a big effect overall in helping prevent your audience from guffawing at you for doing dumb science.<br /><br />Production values: almost passable. I've seen far worse in my time.<br /><br />A new thought for disaster movies: instead of them always having a happy ending where the world gets saved yet once again, how about some where things are a tad bit more realistic, where sometimes even the very best efforts still end up in failure. Particularly when the problem that needs to be resolved was caused in the first place by sheer stupidity. Stupidity-caused disaster movies with glowing, heartwarming endings sort of backhandedly justify stupidity by stating, "No matter how awful a problem is caused by braindead stupidity, it can be fixed." Which is definitely not the case. A self-caused disaster movie with an unhappy ending would serve better as cautionary tale of "Don't be so damn stupid in the first place." Should you watch this movie? If you're bored and you've seen everything else in the scifi section at your local video rental store, sure, why not. But do avoid "Supernova" as I can assure you that you're not THAT bored. That definitely was not one of Luke Perry's better movies. This one is better. That's not saying much, but it is better.<br /><br />One dead hoof up for being a deep-underground genre movie. One dead hoof down for naughtily ripping off from the screenplay of another certain movie of the same genre. | negative |
I've never been a fan of Farrah Fawcett...Until now. She was truly amazing in this movie. The emotion she must have gone through shooting re-take after re-take doesn't bare thinking about. This was a very hard movie to watch, the subject matter is decidedly unpleasant and you feel so helpless just sitting and watching a woman being abused for what seems like an eternity. I actually felt that the whole thing deflated somewhat when her friends returned to the house and I didn't find the conclusion at all plausible. The director seemed very keen in using height in his shots and loved using mirror reflections, I believe he should have paid more attention to the pace in the second half of this piece. I'm sure this makes a heck of a powerful piece of theatre, this movie for me, although it had merit, just fell short. | positive |
But like the Disney film of two generations ago, this film fails as well in the accuracy department. But at least Disney used a Skye Terrier.<br /><br />Is the true story to mundane for movie producers? I don't think so. There is ample documentation to accurately portray they true story instead of the fictionalized accounts we have had to suffer through. <br /><br />Some day, a movie will correctly portray Bobby's owner, John Gray, as the Edinburgh Policeman that he was, and correctly portray Bobby's license a being paid for by the Lord Provost. When that happens, I'll be at the theaters. | negative |
"Foxes" is a great film. The four young actresses Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie, Marilyn Kagan and Kandice Stroh are wonderful. The song "On the radio" by Donna Summer is lovely. A great film. ***** | positive |
I disliked Frosty returns and this one. Both of the films are absurd with poorly written characters and bad voices. The voices could have been done but Frosty returns was worst than this because of the unalike snowman they drew. Frosty's winterwonder land was great and so was the original heartwarming Drama. The only good thing about this film was Frosty the snowman was alike of the classic 60s and a funny line like when they were talking about things that are not real and then Frosty walks by the window humming, whistling whatever he was doing but everything else was badly written and badly animated and I barely got the plot. I saw the DVD cover at the library about 2 or 3 years ago and the art looked crappy so I didn't pick it up until this year because the pictures on the back looked a little touching but I played this film. It was a hassle poorly art characters just like the DVD and it was just terrible about what's going on. I watched this at night and found it dull that I fell asleep on the whole thing (Wait I always do that when I watch something while I go to sleep) But this movie was overall boring<br /><br />Overall rating: Grade -C<br /><br />This is like another holiday special bad rip-off in the frosty returns and this one. This one is the badly 4th sequel like Home alone 4 well i thought that movie was OK but home alone 3 was great. But it's like a bad home alone 3 and 4 people hate like this. My sister didn't watch it that much because when she came into my room to watch 2 minutes and a half of it, she walked away like "I hate the animation!" I agree to her just like the 3rd one Frosty returns. Plain awful! | negative |
It's strange how the least known movies sometimes end up amongst the best you've seen. This movie has all the elements of a standard modern day thriller, guns, techno, baddies, cash, etc, and yet it stands out from your average Hollywood also-ran. I would credit this to two very charismatic people. Christopher Walken has a cool confidence and Lorraine Bracco is one of the warmest and sexiest women I've ever seen on screen. Another major reason why this film stands out is coz the setting shifts to Jamaica after the beginning. The Jamaican resort is so beautiful you'll wish you were there sitting by the pool at night, with a Run'n'Coke. . . .I know I did. I'm very glad I saw this movie - it was just too nice to miss! | positive |
You know this is gonna be a cheesy movie when:<br /><br />1. It was made it the 50's 2. It's in black and white. 3. It has no name actors! 4. Screaming makes up for the lack of special effects!<br /><br />Well not to be outdone - this movie brilliantly incorporated all four of the above elements to turn this into a true cinematic blunder.<br /><br />Okay - shhhhh but I am gonna discuss special effects here - or lack of them - <br /><br />Did you catch the underwater scenes? It looks like it was poorly filmed through an aquarium - note the cape flapping in the breeze.<br /><br />And the repeated re-use of Stock Footage, (exterior house shots, the bridges scenes -- great enhanced the K-R-A-F-Tiness of this film - not since "PLAN 9" - have I seen such creative usage of stock footage.<br /><br />And hey where there was a lack of special effects - not to worry - screaming DOES take the place of special effects in this movie as well. Yes this movie even cleverly used that old hack trick.<br /><br />Grab the popcorn - set your brain on stun (several fermented beverages DEFINITELY helps), sit back, and wonder: why the heck did they put this on film again?<br /><br />Wayno<br /><br /> | negative |
This is not "so bad that it is good," it is purely good! For those who don't understand why, you have the intellect of a four year old (in response to a certain comment...) Anyways, Killer Tomatoes Eat France is a parody of itself, a parody of you, and a parody of me. It is the single most genius text in cinematic history. I have it and the three prequels sitting on my DVD rack next to Herzog and Kurosawa. It embodies the recognition of absurdity and undermines all that you or me call standard. I write scripts and this movie single-handedly opened up a genre of comedy for me, the likes of which we have never seen. It can only be taken in portions... its sort of exploitive... by now I'm just trying to take up the ten line minimum. My comment ended a while ago. Hopefully it works when I submit it now. | positive |
I saw this film in a Cinema-Club in Germany in 1970. Most of the attendees were from the local private school at which I was teaching. I had seen a few Godard films previously while I lived in France, and, though they hadn't been my favorites, I could at least make sense of them. Being able to speak French helped.<br /><br />The fairly innocuous beginning of "Le week-end" soon turned into a kaleidoscope of images, very well, maybe too well photographed, that soon made no sense to me. For me, films, like books, must have some clear sort of meaning. This didn't for me. I suppose I'm not "into" artsy films. Images still haunt me from the film. To this day I refuse to eat rabbit meat, well-loved by the French. Those who've seen the film might realize why. Yes, the theme of materialism came through, but the cannibalism, the car wrecks, and all the other scenes of destruction and horror only sickened me. I'm not sure if I walked out before the end, but I certainly felt like it. I promised myself that I'd never watch another Godard film, and I haven't and never knowingly will.<br /><br />My rating: nothing. It was the most disgusting film I've ever seen. Others may have been more inept, silly or stupid. I've forgotten those while scenes from this one will haunt me forever. | negative |
Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.<br /><br />But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.<br /><br />The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit. | negative |
Dee Snider was inspired to do a two part song by a horror movie. This movie he wrote/directed/produced and starred in details the subjects from those songs (Horror-terria,from TwistedSister/ Stay Hungry). People have commented he must have a sick mind to put something like this out. I don't hear anybody making comments like that about Stephen King, Wes Craven,Dean Koontz,or in his own time Alfred Hitchcock. The movie profiles a modern Psychotic created by current trends in society. Personally I thought it was pretty well done from sheer imagination and inspiration,also without the benefit of a large budget and interviews with actual victims/criminals. This movie is perfect if you want something to give you nightmares and make you cringe about the possible and probable. IT COULD HAPPEN!! | positive |
Shadows breathes the smell of New York's streets like no film before it. This kick off of Cassavetes' directorial work is as atmospheric as political and the initial spark for a renewal in American cinema.<br /><br />Maybe it solicits for watching Cassavetes' first work in a double feature with another debut, Godard's À bout de soufflé. Both films shaped the cinematic production of their countries beyond decades and both breathe a peculiar lightness and jauntiness which was later rarely achieved by those filmmakers in their career.<br /><br />Shadows tells from three Afro-American siblings, Ben (Ben Carruthers), Lelia (Lelia Goldoni) and Hugh (Hugh Hurd). The story is set in the New York jazz milieu and the driving rhythms on the soundtrack play a main part for the feverish, sometimes almost dreamlike atmosphere which draws through the entire film. There's not much happening in the plot. The everyday life of the three siblings is defined by problems in love relationship or in their jobs, but on both levels normality deceives. Without moralizing gestus, Cassavetes simply describes the mechanism of racial exclusion, in public and in private life. It was, regarding to the cinematic depiction of racism, a breakthrough film in the US. <br /><br />This film owes also a lot to the performances of the three leading actors which were all almost completely unknown before. Especially Ben Carruthers established with his energetic portrayal the image of a new self-conception of young, urban blacks in America, an image which characterizes Spike Lee's films of the 80s and 90s. Revealingly, none of those three doubtlessly extremely talented actors was able to start a big career afterwards. Hollywood wasn't and isn't ready to ethnically expand its star system, and that is why Goldoni, Hurd and Carruthers only found small artistic niches in TV and independent films later on.<br /><br />Perhaps Shadows is one of the less "beautiful" films ever shot, and one of the most beautiful ones at the same time; a film of shades and spaces, with a camera that merely watches the stream of life in the crowded street corners, bars, hotel lobbies, apartments, inducing an intriguing ramble through New York's vibrant streets. | positive |
This is a parody. That means, there are no characters as such, they are all plain stereotypes, and the movie relies completely on the quality of the jokes.<br /><br />Well, there ARE quite some good jokes in this movie. Unfortunately, they are hidden in a mass of real stupid ones. If one expects all dialogues to be absurd, the fun wears off.<br /><br />You see, there is American Pie 2, my all time favorite teenager movie. It contains a lot of real original characters. Maybe the jokes are tasteless, but all the people have some kind of live. For example, they feel embarrassed if something embarrassing happens. That is what makes the jokes themselves actually funny !<br /><br />Not so this movie: every scene is clearly arranged as a pure parody, so there are no characters at all, therefore there is really no room for any sympathy. Too, if you know the original movies, you know whole scenes in advance. Add the fact that many jokes are not funny at all, and you have this movie.<br /><br />The only thing that saved me from getting completely bored where in fact the comments from some teenagers in the cinema where I was watching the film.<br /><br />Ah, and my personal highlight of the movie was the very short appearance of Melissa Joan Hart in one scene. Sigh. She is just too cool, she can't be real. Hmm, worth a whole movie ? | negative |
What makes this documentary special from a film-making perspective is its passiveness; which engages the audience to bask in the delight of gypsy music. It innovates the form of documentary while showcasing a tapestry of sound and movement that invites us to celebrate the primal similarity found within the traveling music of (historically) traveling peoples.<br /><br />Indeed the film itself is a single "take" of sweeping movement that travels the globe and transitions effortlessly from one rhythmic culture to the next.<br /><br />Watching this film, one's breath is taken away by the simple beauty in our common connection to music, rhythm and dance. If there is a more deeply spiritual, flowing homage to the sound and movement of gypsy cultures, it has yet to be filmed. | positive |
The movie was certainly true to the real life story on which it was based. It was hard for me to find newspaper articles about the actual facts, but when I located them, I could see that truth, in this case, was stranger than fiction. Judith Light was frighteningly evil in her role as the mother in this movie, so much so that it was difficult to separate her from the role, the mark I think of an excellent performance. Rick Schroder was appropriately clueless as her son who also defended her in court, an example of how hard it can be in some circumstances for a child to accept the actions of a parent, no matter how criminal they may be. One can find fault with the movie, but not with its treatment of the reality on which it was based. | positive |
This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly. | positive |
The brilliant Australian comic genius Barry Humphries had a rare failure with this uneven, and occasionally distasteful comedy, which was snatched back from release after only a few days. Drunken, lecherous Australian diplomat Sir Les Patterson accidentally sets an Arab potentate on fire at the UN and is posted to his tiny country as punishment, arriving just as a palace coup puts a new leader (American soap star Thaao Penghlis) on the throne. Sir Les, with the reluctant help of Dame Edna Everage (Both played by Humphries) almost accidentally foils a scheme by the new leader to release a deadly, disgusting, AIDS-like virus on the Western World. Joan Rivers has a cameo as the female President of the United States, her desk plate reading "President Rivers"! Extreme bad taste mingles with slapstick and Humphries' usual scathing satire in a film which is more enjoyable in it's many funny parts, than taken together as a whole. Dame Edna's TV fans may be puzzled by the presence of a different Madge Allsop, sadly, one who lacks Emily Perry's wonderful drab comedy magic in the role. The film was written By Humphries & his third wife, Diane Millstead, and directed by the Mad Max man himself, George Miller. For die-hard Humphries fans like myself, essential. All others, beware. | negative |
Watch this movie just to see Shahrukh Khan say "I love you,K-k-Kiran..." It's both heartbreaking and frightening at the same time when he says this, from the beginning to the end. This movie made him famous, and I totally recommend it :D It's highly entertaining, the music's wicked and you will laugh right along with Shahrukh here...You'll genuinely feel scared for the hero and heroine and oddly enough you will identify with at least one of the characters. You will feel sad and happy and relieved and afraid at the same time. Go see this classic Bollywood movie with your good buddies and some lovely food and have a day in. And after you see the movie, have the songs and scenery playing in your mind...forever. | positive |
This was one of the best half-hour horror/suspense/fantasy shows of the eighties, without a doubt. Granted the show had a barely capable cast with every single episode, and it stank as far as production values (i.e. the sets) went, but darn it I have to give it some credit for being gutsy with the plots. I mean the plot of each episode was edgy enough that even I, a hardened horror movie, shock-film, and 70's grind-house buff got a little sickened and creeped out. Great show, just great, regardless of what the other reviewers have said here. My favorite episode was called "Bug House", yeah that was the title I think? Anyhow it still gives me the willies every time I think about it to this day, almost 20 years after it first premiered. Other shows like "Tales From The Darkside", "The Outer Limits" and (of course) "The Twilight Zone" were definitely better production values-wise, but in my opinion they ain't got a thing as far as plot lines go when compared to this sick little show! It definitely paved the way for the even more graphic cult classic phenomenon that was, "Tales From The Crypt". | positive |
The story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10) | positive |
Was very fortunate to see the movie Hari Om at The Bermuda International Film Festival. It was the opening night and was such a delightful movie. It was shot beautifully around India and I want to go there now. The main actor..Vijay was absolutely incredible. He was the highlight of the movie. Apparently he was also in the movie..Monsoon Wedding. He was the total star of the show. Benoit's character cracked me up...was very funny. And the girl (forget the name) was great too. They were all great! There were many tremendous scenes like the one with the monkeys. And basically I just loved the movie. Everyone walking out was raving about it and it was certainly a high point of the film festival. Was my favorite from the festival. It really beautifully captured the liveliness of India and can't believe how beautiful India is. The feeling upon walking out of the cinema..was a real high. It is a delightful, happy film. I loved it!! | positive |
watch this movie. it's truly a good ride through the difficulties of making a indie movie, and what happens when it blows up in the film maker's face. there's a lot of stuff about punk rock, and the philosophy behind that movement and it's relationship to this project. so if you're into old punk, American punk, you'll dig it.... but, beware, there's a ton of bad acting bits from the failed project that are incorporated... yet they do come off funny at times. and, actually, some of the best parts are listening to people who have never been involved in movie making pontificate and what they went through in the three year period that it took to put this together. so anyone out there that's about to make a film, especially if you haven't been to film school or worked in the field, you should watch this and learn from the film maker's mistakes. | positive |
The film concerns a classic theme. In fact it concerns the theme exploited by Batman, from beginning to end, but in real data and details. The mayor of New York, appreciated and very diligent and dynamic, in order to get some project through slightly faster than normal, yields to some pressure from some private business contractors about a criminal drug dealer who should have been sent and kept in prison and he pressurizes the judge in his turn to set him free on probation in spite of a negative probation report that disappears but is not destroyed, be it only because of the political value it represents. And what was to happen happens and a few people, including a black schoolboy is killed in a shoot out between a police detective and that criminal. The city may explode because of it: racial tension because of the black school boy and social tension because of the insecurity such criminals free to roam around and go on with their criminal activities represent to the public. Unluckily the film does not show that tension very well and follows the investigation of the first deputy mayor who wants to find out the truth and does find it out. But along the way a few witnesses are killed, and those who had played some role in the whole business are forced to retire (the judge), to end their career and life (the contractor or the contractor's go between), a public officer who was ready to deliver the disappeared probation report, and some shady character after he provides some crucial information. The mayor himself retires and takes a long vacation; But the main interest of the film is in the exploration of the contortions the mayor is doing to cover up the problem and the contortions he remembers having done in the past that led to the mistake about this probation case. The political philosophy that nothing is pure white or pure black and that everything is grey which is never comfortable to decision makers is invoked as an excuse for wrong but profitable decisions. We are not speaking of necessary compromises to get to some consensus in some domains that are crucial to public interest. We are speaking of considering as less important to take a bad decision about some petty or supposedly petty criminal than some infrastructure or economic project in the city. That is not typical of New York. That is true in any mayoral office. It is just more significant in quantity and in quality in a big metropolitan area like New York and of course in a city or country where police departments are municipal and are controlled by political imperatives. The young deputy mayor is thus pushing the old mayor out of the way, and he derails his ambition to be the governor of New York in order to become the president of the US. The mayor is perfect due to the embodiment Al Pacino offers us since he is able to express ten minutes of dialogue with one facial expression that makes the whole dialogue useless. I find the end slightly mushy with the ex-deputy mayor campaigning in his own name. That seems to mean that he was so attached to justice because he saw his chance to push the mayor out of his own way. Hence he is not better than all the others, just still too young in his ambition.<br /><br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines | positive |
I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.<br /><br />Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...<br /><br />The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.<br /><br />The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.<br /><br />The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.<br /><br />In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.<br /><br />Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.<br /><br />I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group. | negative |
Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.<br /><br />That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.<br /><br />Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.<br /><br />The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.<br /><br />Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.<br /><br />Tom Willett | negative |
1st watched 2/2/2003 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Jim Kammerud & Brian Smith): Drab and un-spectacular supposed sequel to the original classic animated `101 Dalmatians.' Yes, the movie continues where it ended in the first one, but the problem is that it plays out much like the original. One of the great things about the original was the pacing of the story, which this one doesn't have. The animation is also very un-spectacular for Disney and all we get is the same characters going thru the same kind of story all over again. When is Disney going to stop boring us with sequels and re-do's etc.. etc. Probably when we stop renting or buying this mediocre fare that they have put out. | negative |
Andy McDermott (Tom Everett Scott) is a shy American teenager spending vacation in Paris with his friends Brad and Chris. Andy saves Serafine Pigot (the gorgeous Julie Delpy) from committing suicide in Eiffel Tour and has a crush on her. He does not know that she is a werewolf. They go to an underground party and are attacked by werewolves. Andy is wounded and becomes a werewolf. He is advised that the only way to become normal again is killing the werewolf that attacked him and eating its heart. This movie is a violent black humor movie. The special effects and the soundtrack are excellent, highlighting the song of the band Bush. I do not know why some readers compares this movie with the masterpiece 'An American Werewolf in London'. The stories have nothing in common (only an American teenager, werewolves and a city in Europe). Highly indicated for fans of werewolf and black humor movies. My vote is seven.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Lobisomem Americano em Paris" ("An American Werewolf in Paris") | positive |
A story of amazing disinterest kills "The Psychic" over and over again. The characters and plot are completely uninteresting (as is Fulci's mad camera work, which is usually a redeeming factor in his films), and any grasp of suspense is nowhere to be found. It's padded out to an insufferable degree--by the end, you won't be clamoring with excitement but stricken with boredom (and, like me, maybe an uncontrollable urge to fall asleep). Jennifer O'Neill's performance deserves occupancy in a better movie. Fulci gorehounds beware--there's just not much going on in "The Psychic."<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
This is the kind of film for a snowy Sunday afternoon when the rest of the world can go ahead with its own business as you descend into a big arm-chair and mellow for a couple of hours. Wonderful performances from Cher and Nicolas Cage (as always) gently row the plot along. There are no rapids to cross, no dangerous waters, just a warm and witty paddle through New York life at its best. A family film in every sense and one that deserves the praise it received. | positive |
The bearings of western-style Feminism on the various subcultures of India have hitherto remained largely non-existent, the two entities belonging to alien realms and threatening (in the name of tradition) never to coincide. Art imitates life (or so the claim goes) and popular Hindi cinema is no exception, reflecting an underlying misogyny which, regrettably, forms the foundation of much of the collective Indian culture. But why? What is it about the female gender that has rendered it so hateful to the culture that women are routinely subject to the most unimaginable horrors, including rape, murder, infanticide, imposed illiteracy, infidelity, and the subjugation of spirit that goes under the name of 'dowry'? Rajkumar Santoshi's latest offering, "Lajja", asks the same plaintive question, linking the atrocities committed against women through three separate chapters/episodes which comprise the journey of shame endured by its protagonist, Vaidehi (Manisha Koirala).<br /><br />Direction on Santoshi's part is not up to par with the level the story demands. He fails to achieve the necessary sensitivity in depicting the saga of sadness and confronts the issue of misogyny from the side, instead of head-on. Santoshi has recently said that he did not make the film for an international film festival, but rather for the masses of his country. Regrettably, the tackiness shows, and the film too often delves into the action-blood-gore genre that Santoshi specializes in. The film suffers from its jerky, episodic pace and its ending is rather too contrived.<br /><br />The female cast is given much kinder and more rounded characterizations than their male counterparts. The protagonist is played sensitively by the luminescently beautiful Manisha Koirala who proves in Lajja that she is one of our time's more competent leading ladies, and given a proper role and set up, emerges with a truly commendable performance. One wonders how brilliantly she may have shone had the film been made by a director with the appropriate creative intention and appreciation of the issue at hand. Mahima Choudhary puts in a laudable performance and continues to show that she is an untapped talent. Cast as Janki, Madhuri Dixit performs with a never-before-seen fervor and felicity for what truly deserves the name of 'acting.' The role of a street smart performer who finds solace in alcohol and the promise of an unborn child stands as the greatest risk in her cannon of song-n-dance roles which have maintained her marquee status over the past decade. Which leaves the final and most disturbing performance in this would-be feminist saga, that of the ceaselessly talented Rekha. Lajja is Manisha Koirala's film, there can be no doubt about that, but it is Rekha who dominates the proceedings in a performance that digs into your bones and sends echoes of terror through the vestibules of your heart. Rekha dazzles as Ramdulari, foregoing vanity and complacency to deliver a performance that is so replete with authenticity and ingenuity that emotional nudity becomes the mantra of this portion of the film. Comparisons are indeed odious, especially when rendered opposite one of the world's great leading ladies, but in the gracious presence of this reigning screen legend the others fade in her shadow.<br /><br />"Lajja" has none of the sophistication of proto-feminist dramas like "Zubeidaa", "Pinjar", or even the Hell-Queen celebration "Laadla": it fulfills its feministic goals in two early moments:the loud tirade in which Mahima berates her in-laws for their abuse of her father who has committed no other crime than given birth to a girl. She erupts, leaving the wedding procession in shambles. Seeing her father devastated, she begins to weep, blaming herself for the chaotic destruction in front of her. She bemoans, "Why did I say anything? I have ruined everything! It is all my fault!" Her grandmother, witnessing silently the abuse she bore, comforts her by saying, "Why are you crying? There is no reason for you to be crying. You are not at fault for anything. The fault is mine. The fault is of every woman who came before you, because if we had had the courage to say in our day what you have said today, there would have been no need for you to say anything today." In this scene the importance of the Feminist Legacy is laid plainly in sight through words.<br /><br />The other, more subtle moment comes very early in the film when Vaidehi (Manisha) has fled from her abusive husband to the refuge of her parents' home in India. To viewers of western societies, it may seem perfectly reasonable (indeed, natural) that any abused woman would seek the protective guardianship of her parents; this, however, is a societal taboo in many eastern cultures, India among them. Once a woman has been married, the identity she assumes is that of her husband and his personal assets (family, business, children, etc.) For her to turn her back on these responsibilities is a grave social sin, one which truly has no equivalent for the western woman. She is thereafter regarded as tainted and as 'damaged goods', one whose value has been nullified entirely by her own actions and her refusal to submit to the role she has been given. She is not so much an individual as she is an emblem of familial honor. Her father rebukes her for her actions, concerned that his familial honor will be tarnished irreparably by the daughter he had already transferred to another man. His primary concern is that of the impending marriage of Vaidehi's younger sister, a prospect made far less likely with a divorced elder daughter in the same household. He tells her in no uncertain that she must return to the man to whom she lawfully belongs, however violent and sadistic he may be. He levies against her the age old adage that, "The honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter." Quietly and pensively, she replies, "Yes, the honor of every home lies in the hands of its daughter. But there is no honor for the daughter herself." | negative |
This movie came aside as a shock in the eighties.Far from trends,that is to say in the heart of sincere creativity,Babettes gaestebud stands as one of the finest movies of its time.Stephane Audran,the wonderful actress of her ex-husband Claude Chabrol's greatest achievements (le boucher,la rupture,les noces rouges,all unqualified musts for movie buffs)gave a lifetime performance.To see her prepare with love and affection her meal is a feast for the eyes.All the people who saw this masterpiece actually tasted,ate Babette's culinary triumph. But the most moving part of the story is its conclusion:Babette was a great French chef,she was famous,now she found a new homeland but her heyday is behind her and she won't never be allowed to come back to her dear France.So the two old sisters do comfort her:In heaven,there will be huge kitchens where she cooks for eternity.While sharing her fortune with her new friends,Babette changed their life,she gave them pleasure and a magic evening they would remember forever.In this simple but extraordinary screenplay,human warmth is everywhere,and I wish everybody a Babette's feast,would it be only for one starry night... | positive |
Part Two picks up... not where the last film left off. As part of the quasi-conventionality of Steven Soderbergh's epic 4+ hour event, Che's two stories are told as classic "Rise" and "Fall" scenarios. In Part Two, Che Guevara, leaving his post as a bureaucrat in Cuba and after a failed attempt in the Congo (only in passing mentioned in the film), goes down to Bolivia to try and start up another through-the-jungle style revolution. Things don't go quite as well planned, at all, probably because of Che's then notorious stature as a Communist and revolutionary, and in part because of America's involvement on the side of the Bolivian Government, and, of course, that Castro wasn't really around as a back-up for Che.<br /><br />As it goes, the second part of Che is sadder, but in some ways wiser than the first part. Which makes sense, as Guevara has to endure low morale from his men, betrayals from those around him, constant mistakes by grunts and nearby peasants, and by ultimately the enclosing, larger military force. But what's sadder still is that Guevara, no matter what, won't give in. One may see this as an incredible strength or a fatal flaw- maybe both- but it's also clear how one starts to see Che, if not totally more fully rounded, then as something of a more sympathetic character. True, he did kill, and executed, and felt justified all the way. And yet it starts to work on the viewer in the sense of a primal level of pity; the sequence where Guevara's health worsens without medicine, leading up to the shocking stabbing of a horse, marks as one of the most memorable and satisfying of any film this year.<br /><br />Again, Soderbergh's command of narrative is strong, if, on occasion, slightly sluggish (understandable due to the big running time), and one or two scenes just feel totally odd (Matt Damon?), but these are minor liabilities. Going this time for the straight color camera approach, this is almost like a pure militia-style war picture, told with a great deal of care for the men in the group, as well as Guevara as the Lord-over this group, and how things dwindle down the final scene. And as always, Del-Toro is at the top of his game, in every scene, every beat knowing this guy so well- for better and for worse- that he comes about as close to embodiment as possible. Overall, the two parts of Che make up an impressive package: history as drama in compelling style, good for an audience even if they don't know Che or, better, if they don't think highly of him. It's that special. 8.5/10 | positive |
The worst movie I have ever seen. The sound quality was bad, the cutting of the scenes was even worse and above all it was not logic and it had no speed...<br /><br />I first tought: "Oh No, I don't want the trail that proves that poor Patrick was an innocent killer". But this turned out to be even worse. Typically in this American film you get a super-hint or no hints at all. I want very tiny small hints that direct you to the killer. The audience isn't involved. And now, when I don't get any hints at all, you can expect a several 's/he-is-the-killer' sweeps in the end. And that is not all. ah... This is hopeless, lets make an end to it...<br /><br />In one word: Disgusting..<br /><br /> | negative |
This is one of the better feel-good films of 1999 with Kate Capshaw leading an all-star cast about a small town and a love letter. First off, the scenery is beautiful, and anyone who sees this film and doesn't want to move to this location is crazy! For the cast, Capshaw is stunning as the lead actress who captivates the emotional roller-coaster role. Tom Everett Scott is charming as the "author" of the note throughout the film, and the always delightful Ellen Degeneres is hilarious! Blythe Danner and the actress who plays the bookstore saleswoman are both terrific, too. Although it was unsuccessful, the film is great as it is both short and sweet and well as very romantic. 10/10 | positive |
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** There's not much that can be said about this early-talkie era flick. (I'm hesitant to call "Cimarron" a "film", because I feel that the word is too esoteric.) But what can be said about it...mainly speaks against it.<br /><br />Take, for example, the overuse of portraying Indians as bad folk. In one scene, the little boy of the flick's lead character--an overbearing and over-ambitious family man who wants to set up a newspaper business-- is playing just outside of his father's office. An Indian kneels down in front of the child. "Hello," the boy says to the Indian, in a very polite manner. The Indian gives him a feather, stands up and walks off.<br /><br />Yancy Cravat, Jr. excitedly runs inside the office. "Mommy! Mommy!" he shouts, holding up the Indian's gift. "Look what an Indian gave me!"<br /><br />"How many times do I have to tell you!" she snaps at the boy. "You aren't ever to talk to those filthy Indians!"<br /><br />Yancy Yates, Sr. (Richard Dix) comes across as a man who speaks with a forked tongue. At the start of the story, he seems to have a definite plan for giving his family a better life. But, we soon enough discover, he's no great over achiever--much less a totally good-moral minded man. His slave child, Isaiah (Eugene Jackson) is one tell-tale sign of this.<br /><br />Upon his family's first trek to a Sunday morning church service--one<br /><br />at which, curiously enough, Cravat is to give the sermon--Isaiah tries to come along, dressed up like Cravat, long-tail suit, holster, gun and all. Cravat tells him to go home. "Ya' all doesn't want me to come with ya' ta church?" Isaiah says with a pout.<br /><br />"No!" Cravat corrects him, patting him on the shoulder. "You don't understand! I want you to stay and guard the house. And if anyone at all comes along... you shoot him dead!"<br /><br />The characters--not to mention the actors--in "Cimarron" couldn't<br /><br />act their way out of burlap sacks, despite their obvious efforts. And nothing in the script was any too commendable, either. (Granted: the incomparable Edna May Oliver--notorious for playing the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland, also released in 1931--actually manages to look good, pulling off her portrayal of a pompous old woman, which is what she's also been best-known for.) But, aside from that, well...<br /><br />Yancy Yates isn't popular in town from the first week he arrives,<br /><br />and one of the outlaws decides to shoot Cravat's white hat off as he and his wife (Irene Dunne) are casually walking by. Despite her anger with the man who fired the bullet, Cravat just takes it completely in stride.<br /><br />Not only was this story not "shooting for realism", but it was very<br /><br />lacking in several key areas: e.g., Cravat's newspaper isn't ever really seen. (Bulletins and posters, yes--but not any newspaper.)<br /><br />Perhaps strangest of all, though: this is set in a small town in<br /><br />Kansas. Yet, for some reason or other, Yancy Cravat is dead-set on<br /><br />calling his paper "The Oklahoma Wig-Wam."<br /><br />Really good westerns have always been very few and far between--the only exceptions being Clint Eastwood's so-called "spaghetti westerns" of the late '60s to early '70s. Cliche westerns, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen.<br /><br />If you like cliche westerns, "Cimarron" will do you proud--but, as for me... it did me embarrassment.<br /><br /> | negative |
I'm a big fan of films where people get conned, and House of Games is almost the pinnacle of the 'films where people get conned' genre. In short, it's an exceptional thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat by providing interesting characters with many levels, and never truly revealing what's happening, while throwing in many twists and surprises to upset completely what you've just seen. The film cons the audience on many occasions, and despite us knowing this; it's still difficult to guess where it's going, and every twist comes off as a surprise. As mentioned, I'm a big fan of cons in movies and the plot of this one follows a female psychiatrist who receives a patient with a huge debt owed to a fellow gambler. She then goes to the gambler in an attempt to help out her patient, and on the way gets drawn into the art of reading people in order to pull off a con.<br /><br />House of Games breathes a sleazy atmosphere throughout, and David Mamet does well in establishing his film's setting in the underground levels of the city. The film is well acted also, with all concerned bringing life and believability to their characters with the greatest of skill. Joe Mantegna stars as the con man at the heart of the film, and although his performance is a little under wrought, he's always solid and believable as the villain of the piece. Lindsay Crouse stars alongside him as the psychiatrist seduced by his work, and again is believable in her role. She may not be the greatest looker, but at least she can act. The way that the film executes it's plot is the main star of the show, however, and you will no doubt be amazed on multiple occasions as to how the film constantly manages to amaze and deceive the viewer. At times it's almost like we are in the thick of the action and being conned by the con men in the film. Another thing that's great about this film is the way that it shows the audience how to pull off certain cons, which is useful if you're interested in making twenty bucks, say. All in all, House of Games is a truly first rate thrill ride. | positive |
This is a decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway. | negative |
I love this anime! I was laughing my head off with all of the jokes and the violence (mostly from Akane Ranma's reluctant but short tempered "fiancee")is so slapstick however Ranma does deserve it but he does try his best to make amends...clumsily. The main character Ranma goes to China to train only to fall into the cursed Jusenkkyo Spring and turns into a girl when splashed by cold water. From then on it's pure chaos one after another. Among the stand outs are the deranged brother and sister duo of Kuno and Kodachi, the sexy Shampoo, the pervert Happosai all causing trouble for our hero/heroine. However it is Ranma's selfish father Genma who winds up being the culprit for the mess most of the time. If anyone want an anime that's funny, this is the one. It's cuter and better with the Japanese dub. | positive |
Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a `Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts above all which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.<br /><br />For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated. | positive |
If you're in the mood for some dopey light entertainment, this will pass the time. If you expect one jot of plausibility, don't bother. To me, the dance scene looked like it was exaggerated for comic effect; it didn't look especially hot or skilled. | negative |
This film provides the saga of a legendary Wild Bill Hickock. He, Buffalo Bill Cody, and Calamity Jane, are the central characters.<br /><br />As the Civil War closes, Lincoln mentions his concern that the country's dynamism would be enhanced if people would follow the advice, "Go West, young man," which, mercifully, the film didn't erroneously attribute to Horace Greeley, as a number of others did. But then, he gets assassinated, and some financiers speculate that they can get rich selling weapons to the American Indians.<br /><br />In the meantime, we see Wild Bill Hickock, who interacts with a small boy, while a steamboat is loading at a dock along the Mississippi. Wild Bill uses a Bowie knife, which he eventually gives to the boy, calling it an "Arkansas Toothpick," which in reality was a different type of knife, though both were used throughout the frontier.<br /><br />Hickock eventually meets Buffalo Bill Cody, who looks close to the photographs and paintings of the actual man. Cody has just gotten married, and is bringing his bride to the Old West to settle down.<br /><br />When they arrive at their destination, they run into Calamity Jane, who has a crush on Hickock. She looks at Cody's wife, and asks Buffalo Bill, "Is this your mopsy?" The line was one that caused the Hayes Board some problem, since one definition of "mopsy" was prostitute. Demille wanted the line in, and one of his aides pointed out that in Beatrix Potter's books about Peter Rabbit, three of the rabbits were Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail. He pointed this out and asked the censors to identify "the rabbit of ill virtue." It worked; the line stayed in.<br /><br />The Indians were getting restless, in part because of the superior weaponry they got from the agent of the Eastern financiers. Cody and Hickock were asked to help scout the area, so that troops could get safely through to a beleaguered area. Cody led the troops; Hickock went to check out the activities of an Indian chief, who was an old acquaintance, and who was leading some of the hostile Indians.<br /><br />Calamity Jane gets captured, and Hickock gets captured trying to save her. They are brought to the chief, and although neither would talk, torture applied to Hickock breaks Calamity Jane's willpower, and she tells the route Cody is using.<br /><br />The two are released, and Hickock joins up with Cody and his forces, in part to alert them they're walking into a trap. With Hickok's help, they hold off the Indian attack.<br /><br />Hickock decides to go after the gun runners, and finally takes them prisoner. As they're waiting for authorities, Hickock is gunned down by being shot in the back while playing cards.<br /><br />There are numerous historic anomalies in the film, but it retains the flavor of legend. Pretty good for the 1930s. | positive |
Of course, going into it, one would expect it to be a typical, stupid T&A flick, and it is. But it really does have some fairly well thought out humorous moments. Given the era in which it was made, and the obvious exploitation aspect, it is still one of the better B comedies of the time.<br /><br />While watching this movie, you will see quite obviously the inspiration for many of the scenes in "Revenge of The Nerds", and numerous other films of the same genre. Most of the acting is horrible, and WAY over the top, but that's exactly what I expect in a movie like this. What it lacks in the way of acting ability, it more than makes up for with its camp value and complete disregard for anything of merit.<br /><br />The amazing thing about this movie, is that there was obviously some money that went into it. Films like this made today just don't have the same style. If you can turn your brain off, and turn your sense of humor up for an hour and a half, you will enjoy this flick. I dare anyone to not find at least SOMETHING in this movie that they think is funny, if not hilarious. | positive |
I loved this movie. It was almost the same as the first (cabin by the lake), only instead of just killing women, he kills men also. And the scenes are much more interesting, 2 of my favorite scenes are firstly, when Stanley and Allison are in the dance club and he is describing Kimberly's last moments before she is thrown to the water, And secondly, When Stanley is visiting Allison in his basement, right before they head down to the set, when she kisses him. Those scenes, for me, were very intense and riveting. I gave the movie a rating of 8/10, not because the movie was bad, but because the filming was bad, I mean, there were times when you'd notice nothing was wrong, like its being shot the way a film is usually shot, you wouldn't see the "live" camera shooting, but then, very little, you would notice the filming mistakes. what went wrong?? | positive |
I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:<br /><br />Stanley and Stella in "Breaking the Ice". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately. | positive |
From start to finish, this 1926 classic two reeler from the Hal Roach Studios seems to sum up what was fun about the 20's. It stars the now forgotten comic genius, Charley Chase and was directed by the legendary Leo McCarey, who was unknown then but would earn his keep with Roach and graduate to greener pastures in the 30's and 40's. Recently released onto video and disc, this is one of the ten best examples of silent screen comedy and should be seen by audiences of all ages. Although today his star has virtually diminished, Charley Chase was considered the leader in the short subject comedy field in the waning years of the silents. He helped the careers of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy before they were brought together as a team, Leo McCarey and a host of other talents. It is a shame that he is all but remembered today. Check out this little gem of a film. Once you do, you will be seeking out other films from this classic comic. He had his hand in over 300 films and many of them survive. Rediscover this lost giant of a film from a bygone era and its giant star. | positive |
TV movies generally do not receive as much recognition or credit as great films - and it is usually for good reason but the 1996 HBO movie The Late Shift is easily one of the best TV movies ever. Based on Bill Carter's revealing book, The Late Shift is about NBC's handling of late night talk show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno when it came to filling the vacant Tonight Show seat once held by Johnny Carson. We see what happens in front of the camera - author Bill Carter, director Betty Thomas, and HBO show us what happened when the cameras were turned off.<br /><br />Unfortunately we can never really know for sure what really happened when it came time for Johnny Carson to be replaced by either Letterman or Leno - but The Late Shift gives us an interesting possible reality. While simply being a very well made film, The Late Shift also does a really good job of portraying all the sides fairly equally - although you wonder if the film makes Letterman and Leno out to be too nice of guys; especially Leno, who seems a bit too saintly.<br /><br />The performances are also very good. In a very deserving Golden Globe-winning performance, Kathy Bates plays Leno's extremely pushy manager Helen Kushnick who, according to Carter and the book/film was very problematic for the studio and Leno (the real Kushnick actually suited Bill Carter for libel over this portrayal!). John Michael Higgins breaks out of his usual gigs of getting small quirky comedy parts and gives an excellent performance as David Letterman - giving an excellent impression of Letterman but also creating a dimensional and relatable character. Daniel Roebuck gives a good performance as Leno but does not quite measure up to some of the other talent in the film - Roebuck probably did the best anyone could have done, it is just looks hammy whenever anyone tries to do an impression or portrayal of Leno. Bob Balaban (a squirrelly Warren Littlefield), Treat Williams (a magician-like Michael Ovitz), and Ed Begley Jr.(a pompous Rod Perth) also give memorable supporting performances.<br /><br />The Late Shift certainly is one of the best made-for-TV movies I have ever seen. I suppose if one has not watched David Letterman or Jay Leno, The Late Shift might not be for them but it is an interesting film for those who get into the late night politics - something that has recently reared its ugly head yet again with the 2009-10 Conan/Leno/NBC debacle. | positive |
Its hard to decide where to begin.I bought this for a few quid and its the worst few quid Iv ever wasted. The back of the DVD had no pictures and a few lines plot summary, this should have warned me, but I usually like bad movies for a laugh so decided to give it a go. The movie is made up of three short stories,each revolving around someone who was on a particular bus at one point.(its never made clear what the significance of the bus is, or what city its set in)<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILERS(as if there is anything to be spoiled) The first story is about a man who is persuaded, by a car, to purcahse it, against his wife's wishes.The car is sort of like a demonic Brum and takes over his life.<br /><br />The second is about a slob of a man who never cleans his fridge and a monster bacteria man grows out of it.<br /><br />The third about a woman who goes to a dating agency, only to discover her date isnt all that normal.<br /><br />Inbetween these, we are treated to shots of the bus(or A bus anyway) while a narrator whittles on a load of garbage about relationships(really,its like he is on commission for saying 'relationships')<br /><br />The movie actually has no redeeming features whatsoever.The acting, the costumes and the little Spfx are all disgusting.There arent even any attractive female cast members to admire.Simply put, this movie is a debacle. | negative |
Despite its many faults, Hallmark's 1995 version of Gulliver's Travels is still the finest adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical classic - largely because it not only includes ALL of Gulliver's many travels but also includes the satire that's often overlooked. Unfortunately the twin problems of the book's highly episodic structure and a television budget (even a fairly lavish one) remain. The book is a somewhat rambling collection of traveller's tales moving simply from one surreal landscape to another, but Simon Moore's adaptation tries to impose some order on the chaos by providing a parallel plot that sees Gulliver returned to England clearly deeply traumatised and trying to prove his way out of the insane asylum where the rival for his wife's affections has had him committed. The England scenes at once mirror and comment on the travels, elements of which occasionally spill over into the real world. The trouble is that for the first hour or so it acts more as a distraction, constantly pulling you away from the story just as it starts to get interesting. The Lilliput scenes suffer worse here, with the feeling that the home scenes are too often designed to save them from filming the more expensive setpieces - this has to be the only version where we don't see Gulliver pulling the Blefescu fleet behind him.<br /><br />Yet once Gulliver makes his escape, the tone becomes more consistent as he finds his situation reversed and himself the pet of the giants of the Utopians of Brobdingnag, a guest of the wise men of the floating island of Laputa who are so engrossed in science that they have no common sense left, the guest/prisoner of a historian who leans history directly from the source, offered immortality with all it's terrible consequences before finally finding a world he wants to belong if only he can convince the sublime talking horses the Houynhnhms that he's not an uncivilized Yahoo, each new destination convincing him of what an absurd and petty species humanity is. For the most part it's a darker set of Travels than expected, with only Gulliver's curiosity and commonsense and disappointment keeping it from plunging into irretrievable bleakness - and even this is offset by the scenes in the asylum where it becomes more obvious that even if he is telling the truth it may well have driven him genuinely insane. It's in these latter scenes that Ted Danson's Gulliver really shines, never more so than in an extraordinary speech where he turns his trial into a disappointed judgment on the whole human race.<br /><br />Being made for television, the Yahoos are rather less literally scatological here than on the page, but for the most part this is a more adult treatment than you might expect with no real dumbing down. The star cast is certainly impressive, and for the most part well-used (if somewhat briefly in a few cases) - Mary Steenburgen, James Fox, Peter O'Toole, Edward Woodward, Omar Sharif, Shashi Kapoor, Edward Fox, Ned Beatty, Alfre Woodard, Kristin Scott Thomas and Isabelle Huppert among them. It's hard to imagine the upcoming Jack Black version even coming close to being a fraction as impressive as this. | positive |
I saw the episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his "harrowing" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't. | negative |
Masters of Horror: The Screwfly Solution starts as America is being infected by an airborne virus that affects the male population, when aroused men indiscriminately kill any woman in sight apparently in the name of God. Scientist Alan (Jasn Priestley) is brought in by the Government & knows more than most & senses the situation may have gone too far already so he tells his wife Anne (Kerry Norton) to take their teenage daughter Amy (Brenna O'Brien) & try to survive as the future of the human race may depend on them...<br /><br />This Canadian American co-production was episode 7 from season 2 of the Masters of Horrror TV series, directed by Joe Dante I thought The Screwfly Solution was pretty bad. I personally think the script by Sam Hamm sucks, it takes itself far too seriously & I don't really understand why it's part of the Masters of Horror series, the horror that the filmmakers are going for in The Screwfly Solution is in the actual story itself & themes & ideas it brings up rather than on screen visual horror particularly the tenuous ecological message it sees intent on ramming down our throats whenever it's gets the chance during it's short 60 odd minute running time which I felt itself was a problem as the thing just finishes out of what could easily be interpreted as necessity rather than any meaningful attempt to wrap things up. I wasn't happy with the inconsistencies with the story either, if men only kill when sexually aroused why does the flight attendant casually break that woman's neck on the plane? Was he sexually aroused, I think not. Why does every bloke then think he's killing in the name of God? I just can't see every single bloke on Earth suddenly knowing the Bible & starting to believe in God, I just found the notion ridiculous & the show also states clearly that there's nothing religious about what's going on so what's the deal with everyone thinking they have a divine to murder any woman they see? Then there's the fact people get turned on by different things, what about gays for instance? Will they kill guys instead of women? I know there's a brief scene which makes a joke out of the gay issue but it's conveniently brushed to one side & then there's the thing which annoyed me the most. The fact that presumably every bloke on earth has turned psycho & killed all the women they go about their everyday business like nothing ever happened, it just felt so stupid, the plotting is rubbish & to round things off there's a ending which looks like it was taken from a rejected episode of The X-Files (1993 - 2002) with a bright neon alien.<br /><br />Director Dante on this showing definitely doesn't qualify as a Master of Horror as far a I'm concerned, the story is badly paced, it's just so stupid considering it's played deadly straight & instead of trying to make a proper horror show he turns in more of a thriller with it's deadly virus on the loose situation & the subsequent mother & daughter on the run because of it, there's very little here in the way of what I would call effective horror & even less gore. There's a scene when a woman is stabbed with a broken bottle, a brief scene after when a guy stabs his own groin with said bottle & another woman is stabbed in the stomach but nothing else to write home about.<br /><br />Technically like the other episodes it's really good & it doesn't have the look of a cheap TV series, the special effects are great as usual & it's well made. The acting is alright but no-one really stood out.<br /><br />The Screwfly Solution is easily the worst Masters of Horror episode I've seen but bear in mind I haven't seen all of them... yet. As a stand alone piece of entertainment it did nothing for me & as a show made by a so-called Master of Horror it disappoints me even more. | negative |
First love is a desperately difficult subject to pull off convincingly in cinema : the all-encompassing passion involved generally ends up as a pale imitation or, worse, slightly ridiculous.<br /><br />Lifshitz manages to avoid all the pitfalls and delivers a moving, sexy, thoroughly engrossing tale of love, disaster and possible redemption, while tangentially touching on some of the deeper themes in human existence.<br /><br />The core story is of Mathieu, 18, a solitary, introverted boy who meets Cédric, brasher, more outgoing but just as lonely, while on holiday with his family. As the summer warms on, they fall in love and, when the holidays end, decide to live together. A year later, the relationship ends in catastrophe: Cédric cheats on Mathieu who, distraught, tries to take his own life. He survives and, in order to get perspective back on his life he returns to the seaside town where they first met, this time cloaked in the chill of winter.<br /><br />If the tale was told like this it would never have the impact it does: much of it is implied, all of it happens non-sequentially.<br /><br />The intricate narrative is essential to getting a deeper feeling of the passions experienced, through the use of counterpoint and temporal perspective. Fortunately, the three time-lines used (the summer of love, the post-suicide psychiatric hospital and the winter of reconstruction) are colour coded: warm yellows and oranges for the summer, an almost frighteningly chill blue for the hospital scenes and warming browns and blues for the winter seaside.<br /><br />Both main actors put in excellent performances though, whilst it's a delight to see Stéphane Rideau (Cédric) used to his full capacity (I'm more used to seeing him under-stretched in Gael Morel's rather limp dramas), Jérémie Elkaim (Mathieu) has to be singled out for special mention: you can feel his loneliness, then his almost incredulous passion, then his character crumbling behind a wall of aphasia. Beautifully crafted gestures get across far more than dialogue ever could.<br /><br />The themes touched upon are almost classic in French cinema: our difficulty in really understanding what another is feeling; our difficulty in communicating fully; the shifting sands of meaning
The film's title "Presque rien" (Almost Nothing) points to all of these and, indeed, to one of the key scenes in the film: In trying to understand why Mathieu attempted to kill himself, a psychiatrist asks Cédric if he had ever cheated on him
"Non
enfin, oui
une fois, mais ce n'était rien" (No
well, yes
once, but it was nothing). Cédric still loves Mathieu he brought him to the hospital during the suicide attempt (none of which we see) and tries desperately to contact him again once he leaves but cannot understand that he has lost him forever, because something that seemed nothing to him (a meaningless affair) is everything to Mathieu.<br /><br />Whilst the film is darker than the rather unfortunate Pierre et Gilles poster would suggest, it is not without hope: we get to see Cédric's slow, painful attempts to get back in touch with life, first through a cat he adopts, then through work in a local bar and finally contact with Pierre, who may be his next love. But here the story ends: A teenage passion, over within the year, another perhaps beginning. So what was it? Almost Nothing? Certainly not when you're living it
| positive |
What is with all of the European (especially England) comments here? All i gotta say is that when i saw this movie for the first time when i was like 13 i thought it was great. Of course it's stupid. That's the point. You have to see the movie Dr. Strangelove and Men in Black to get the whole joke behind this movie, but come on people, what did you expect to see? I can think of many movies that are far worse than this, and they were expensive Hollwood films with real actors in them. For what it's worth, Men in White is a very stupid-funny mock of a movie. And with all the stupid-funny stuff that England has been making for the last half century, i am shocked at all the negative comments. Us stupid Americans like our stupid humor. P.S., see 'Team America: World Police" for some true laughs that Europeans will especially like. HA! | positive |
After watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).<br /><br />Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible. | negative |
Where this movie is faithful to Burroughs' vision, it is excellent; where it departs from Burroughs, it is superb. It is a tale of family, of the seeking of a father by a real and emotional orphan. Lambert's speaking of one of the most anguished lines in all of cinema "He was my Father!" is enough to bring tears to the eyes of the most cynical critic. Not a perfect motion picture - the notorious over-dubbing of McDowell's voice by Glenn Close is unconscionable and only explicable in terms of a very British error - but a fine if flawed masterpiece and a noble farewell to Sir Ralph Richardson. | positive |
9/11 is a classic example of cinema verite, a sort of realist documentary, in this case of New York firemen as they battle against one of the most extraordinary events of world history. It's all tiny, unobtrusive, hand-held video cameras, often betrayed by the poor quality of most of the filming (and by the director, Naudet's hand frequently wiping the screen).<br /><br />In this film, you get to know most of the firemen - Tony Benatatos, the rookie (or 'probie', in NY fireman vernacular), the Fire Chief Joseph Pfeiffer (who finds he's lost his brother later on) and a few others. There are studio interviews with most of these people throughout the film, just to emphasise the personal, reflexive nature of the events. The build-up is quite dramatic and well-done, particularly the passing-out ceremony at the Fire Department, with a few useful swish-pans and a sort of dialectical editing of the rather limited filmwork (just like Rob Reiner's A Few Good Men). Tony looks proud.<br /><br />The viewpoint and camera angle is usually from amidst the firemen, which is interesting and there is some excellent footage from inside the lobby of WTC1 while Pfeiffer and his team plan what to do next - this is classic cinema verite. There is also the eery, haunting sound of the occasional human body crashing against the portico outside. It is then that an increasingly forlorn Fire Chief Pfeiffer realises that his task is desperate and probably hopeless - and this is before WTC2 collapses. You have to give credit to Naudet for knowing which faces to film and at which moment.<br /><br />The sound of the neighbouring WTC2 collapsing is so awfully sad, poignant and terrifying that you realise what an ordeal this is for the firemen. From the lobby, it looks, feels and sounds like the end of the world and the poor firemen look so utterly bewildered and frightened. You hear an enormous rumbling, trembling maelstrom - like that of a giant, monolithic beast slowly falling to the ground after being so mortally wounded - the neighbouring tower has collapsed yet the fire team remaining in WTC1 are oblivious to this event. Where is the communication?<br /><br />This film is captivating yet the narration is amateurish and should have been avoided - cues like 'this really was a day like no other' or Naudet's frequently banal pronouncements like 'you could see fear in everybody's eyes' and 'I knew Tony was freaking out'! The film is really just one long video diary. There are no pictures from higher up the building where some of the firemen have gone. Imagine this film blended with CCTV footage from some of the rooms higher up or some of the news coverage from the day. The effect would be greater. You could even combine this story with that of Mayor Giuliani and, perhaps, the famous Cornishman Rick Riscorla who literally was many floors up acting the hero.<br /><br />I don't see much of a propaganda element in this film, as some reviewers suggest. This film is no Triumph of the Will, by Riefenstahl. Some time later the firemen drape the American flag over a nearby, surviving building overlooking what has become Ground Zero. So what?<br /><br />There are also some moments of dubious camerawork; for example, who is holding the camera when the two Naudet brothers are reunited back at the fire station? Is it staged?<br /><br />There is an excellent finish, very much in the traditon of the excellent French director Alain Resnais (Hiroshima mon amour), with two strips of light reflected in the water, shimmying. | positive |
Not sure why the other comment on this film was so negative, but I loved this movie. I am a student of Asian art with a particular love of Korean art, culture and history. I thought this movie borough a very controversial and interesting character to life. Jang Seung-up is one of the (maybe the most) famous Korean artist and continues to be revered as a master. Given the tumult of the time in which he painted and his own conflicted nature, it is amazing that he produced so much work, in so many styles and with such skill. This movie honors his talent while taking a direct look at his erratic and somewhat self-destructive personality. The cinematography in MY opinion was beautiful, many of the outdoor panoramic shots looked like Korean landscape paintings (which I found a lovely conceit rather than "overly arty") and I think that Choi Min-sik portrayed Jang Seun-up with a necessary intensity and unpredictability. I would highly recommend this film to art lovers and movie lovers alike. | positive |
blows my mind how this movie got made. i watched it while i worked at home writing emails and answering the phone -- i ONLY watched it because i hoped the "revenge" part would be good. needless to say, the revenge and the forced plot twists were not worth the emails during which they were watched. in fact, i'm not even sure what happened at the end any more. the acting was as bad as re-enactment scenarios on the "FBI Files" show -- by far, the worst re-enactments (really only "Arrest and Trial" can possibly be as bad at re-enactments). i didn't even know that the leading man was in Third Eye Blind until i looked the movie up here on IMDb, but its obvious why he hasn't made any movies since. i hope he is a good singer. | negative |
I ran across this movie on a local TV channel last night. Frankly, I have never heard about this movie before. Simply, I lost track of Seagual's recent movies, for each one is worst than the previous one. Here, again we have a dull Seagal as if he was insisted by his girlfriend to make this movie and he accepted forcefully. The plot is ridiculous, acting is below zero, and there is no single aspect the movie is not falling apart. I simply don't have any idea why Seagal did this movie. Man, it is even worst than "Out for a kill"! If you watch this movie you will start feeling sorry for Seagal. He seems to be running out of ideas, enthusiasm and money. Avoid this movie and do something worthwhile. | negative |
I don't quite know how to explain "Darkend Room," because to summarize it wouldn't really do it justice. It's a quintessentially Lynchian short film with two beautiful girls in a strange, mysterious situation. I would say this short is definitely more on the "Mulholland Drive" end of the Lynchian spectrum, as opposed to "The Elephant Man" or "The Straight Story." It's hidden on Lynch's website, and well worth the search. | positive |
this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya | negative |
NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!<br /><br />Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.<br /><br />The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect. <br /><br />Just avoid this "comedy". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire. | negative |
The EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE cast returns for Disney Pictures follow up, but this time the spotlight is on Kronk(voiced by Patrick Warburton), who is no longer Yzma's(Eartha Kitt)henchman. Kronk has started a new life and is very happy with his role as chef of his own restaurant. Things go merrily along until Kronk gets word that his Papi(John Mahoney)is coming for a visit. Kronk is worried, because he knows that his life won't impress his Papi. One thing that he has always wanted and never received is a "thumbs up" from his dad. A flurry of blunders and a gigantic cheese explosion in the restaurant leaves our likable hero very deep in trouble and anxiety. To save the day, a little help from his friends.<br /><br />Other voices: Tracey Ullman, David Spade, John Goodman, Wendie Malick, April Winchell and Gatlin Green. | negative |
this is best comedy i ever seen! but not all can understand this you must be from Georgia to understand this amazing movie! :) overall one of best film i ever seen......... Vachtangi(Benjamin) and all supporting actors playing very very good but acting of Kote Daoshvili (Father Germogel) is for my opinion best acting in supporting role in history of films :)) in this movie playing many georgian stars like ipolite xvichia,sergo Zakariadze,sofiko chiaureli,verikoan djafaridze,Sesilia Takaishvili,Dodo Abashidze.... they all are Stars in Georgian cinematography :) plus in this movie is playing great Russian star Evgeni Leonov and of course Director of the film Georgy Danelia is one of the best...... i recommending this movie for everyone but remember you must know good Russian language to watch this movie | positive |
Sheba Baby, is another Pam Grier Blaxploitation film. It was one of Pam's less visceral films of this genre. Pam plays Sheba Shane, who's a Chicago gumshoe. Sheba's father is the owner of a small loan company, in Missouri. When local mobsters try to run her father of of business, Sheba goes after the bad guys.<br /><br />Pam Grier had already made her mark in Blaxploitation films, by the time Sheba Baby came along. Fans of both Coffy and Foxy Brown, know that Pam is capable of an explosive intensity as an actress. In Sheba Baby, the fiery performance that viewers had come to expect from Pam, wasn't as evident in this film. Not that Pam doesn't kick-butt in Sheba Baby. She's just not as much of a runaway-train vigilante, as she was in her previous Blaxploitation films.<br /><br />The supporting cast in this film, are a distinct disappointment. So Sheba Baby is Pam's film, through and through. And though Pam's a bit more subdued than in her other films, she still gives a compelling performance in Sheba Baby. This film is definitely worth your time, if you're an ardent Pam Grier fan. | positive |
This documentary traces the origins and life of the Zephyr skateboard team, using original film shot in the 1970s (mostly by Craig Stecyk) combined with interviews of the team members and other influential people today.<br /><br />The first part of the film documents how the "Dogtown" section of Venice, CA came to be, starting back around the turn of the century when the town was created to be a Venice, Italy-like European city. By the 1970's, the one remaining local attraction, the Pacific Ocean Park, had been abandoned, leaving a beach with lots of exposed piers and other hazards. The poor kids living in the area had nothing better to do than surf, and they excelled despite (or perhaps because of) their surroundings. Because the waves dissipated in the afternoon, they took up skateboarding to fill their time, and the empty swimming pools caused by the drought during those years plus their surfing backgrounds led them to create the vertical skateboarding style that is mainstream today. <br /><br />I found that the film covered much more about surfing than I expected, which seemed like a bonus since I really didn't know much about surfing or skateboarding before I watched the film. The soundtrack, not surprisingly, was good as well. I also liked how these kids were just following their passion and generally ended up better off for the experience. The parts that didn't work so well for me were the drama that they tried to create, which seemed somewhat forced, and the team's somewhat overinflated sense of self-importance (although this is probably just left-over street attitude from where they grew up). This is not to say that they didn't have significant influence, but only that it seems extremely likely that there were other factors as well. <br /><br />One note: My wife is more affected than most to nausea when films use what we refer to as "SpastiCam" (wiggling camera movements). This film is often guilty, so if you are so afflicted, be warned. <br /><br />I would recommend this film to anyone, but especially to anyone with skateboarding and/or surfing in their history.<br /><br />Seen on 5/11/2002. | positive |
The main reason I loved this movie is because IMx (formerly Immature) were in it. They were in House Party 3 when they were 11, but they are all grown up now! I was a little shocked at some of the things they were doing in the movie (almost ready to tear my hair out), but I had to realize that they were not my little boys anymore. I think Chris Stokes did a pretty good job, considering that is was his first movie. | positive |
Mr. "Uwe Fail" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of "point and shoot". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the "point and shoot" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another "Uwe Fail" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website "petition online" and do a check for one named "Stop Uwe Bowl".<br /><br />That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. | negative |
I'd read all the negative reviews for "Anna Christie". You know, the gripes about the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless.<br /><br />I believe "Anna Christie" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her. Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from Garbo.<br /><br />The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all.<br /><br />Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior) leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful "Dinner At Eight". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as Garbo's father.<br /><br />This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still wonderful. | positive |
If a movie has an unimaginative, hackneyed story and bland characters it needs to make up for it by being really, really funny. You can get away with a lot if you're funny. But while there are a few amusing moments scattered here and there in Grandma's Boy, they are so far and few between that they cannot begin to make up for the hack work the film displays in such abundance.<br /><br />The movie certainly doesn't aim to surprise anyone. When Alex hides marijuana in his grandma's house in a tea tin you know what's going to happen later on and it does. The movie appears to have been written by a committee who did a study of mediocre comedies and grabbed any gag that appeared in more than one of them.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about the movie is its somewhat unusual setting. The game takes place in a video game development company, which should be an interesting source for some clever comedy. But don't be fooled, this is not a movie about video game developers. This is basically a college frat house movie in which all the frat boys have been shoved into a big room to play video games.<br /><br />The way the movie completely fails to think through its setting and use it for original laughs can be seen in the character of J.P. J.P. is I think more-or-less conspired by the creator of Doom, John Carmack. At least inspired to the extent that he's an odd genius who makes games.<br /><br />In the movie, J.P. is a weird, obnoxious geek who is despised and jeered by the company game testers. That makes no sense at all. If you are one of the most significant people in the history of video games (as J.P. is supposed to be) then even if you're quirky and obnoxious, people will still admire and respect you on some level. If Stephen Hawking is obnoxious his associates still aren't going to make jun of him to his face.<br /><br />Also, game testers are just as likely to be geeks as J.P., but in the movie they are basically frat boys. It's a fun normal guys against the obnoxious dweebs movie. And while that formula has worked, very occasionally, in the past, it is absurd in the setting of a game company. If you decide to use an unusual setting for a movie, you don't simply cram in all the conventions of movies from different settings into that one. Unless you're a hack.<br /><br />About two thirds of the way through the movie I gave up. Something happened that I knew would result in a series of painfully predictable events. And I realized I hadn't actually laughed at anything for the last half hour anyway. So I stopped (although I did fast forward just to make sure I was right that they would follow the most predictable clichés, which they did).<br /><br />Normally if a movie's bad I just say it's bad and then run out of things to say, but this movie is such a phenomenally shoddy production that it deserves a long diatribe.<br /><br />Shame on the movie for luring a good actress like Linda Cardellini into it, then surrounding her with talentless nobodies. I'll give the movie 1 point for giving Shirley Jones the chance to be the anti-Shirley Partridge though. | negative |
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />Steer clear. | negative |
Help! Once again, Paul Schrader has sabotaged his own intentions with dull, pedantic storytelling. I rearranged a vacation so that I could see this "world premiere." What a mistake! Why did Schrader even want to make an Exorcist film? Lofty intentions are fine, but if I wanted 2 hours of theological babble, I would visit my nephew's Sunday school. Father Merrin's struggle with his faith, as presented in his younger days, is a potentially interesting subject. But an Exorcist movie needs more! The relentlessly draggy presentation, along with ridiculous special effects, makes for a strange production. Who is this movie for? I didn't bother seeing the Harlin version, but at least they apparently tried to deliver some sort of visceral thrills.<br /><br />The Exorcist series has been quite strange. The first film was excellent, but every sequel has been unloved and pointless. Why do they keep making them? I suppose Schrader made it so that he could get a lot of money. But why should we go? | negative |
I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia
Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more. | negative |
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'. | negative |
Go way back to page ten of this review section, and work your way back up. Go ahead; I'll wait.<br /><br />Done? Well, then you've probably noticed the same trend that I have. You could nitpick all day long about the lame jokes, dated timing and obviously derivative plot points and shtick in 'Bogus', but this movie seems to be one of those 'hate me now, love me later" flicks.<br /><br />Bill and Ted's biggest problem was that the original appealed to those 80's kids who followed the tends and considered themselves on the cutting edge of fashion. That worked fine for the original, but obviously bombed in 1991, when no self-unrespecting slacker would be caught dead wearing anything but flannel or admitting he liked anything about the 80's. As Ted would put it: "Dude, this is a totally deep hole. Wanna play 20 questions?" <br /><br />They say nostalgia goes in 20 year cycles, and that certainly seems to be the case here. Here in 2010, those of use who grew up with Cindi Lauper and Megadeth are beginning to look back to appreciate some of those pivotal films that (like it or not) made us who we are. If you're one of those who look at 'Bogus' as if it were an outdated ("Fa gs!") ripoff, then you're missing the point and probably spent six years growing facial hair, wearing flannel and looking like you just crawled out of bed.<br /><br />In self-referencing its own origins (the Star Trek episode" and and time traveling with a phone booth), B&T makes no attempt to hide its creators' love for homage. Quentin Tarantino, anyone? I'm not saying 'Bogus' is 'True Love,' but I do think it needs to be appreciated for what it is: a fun snap-shot of our society at a time before child psychology, Ritalin, anti-smoking ads, terrorist paranoia and the proliferation of media fear-mongering. <br /><br />So, for all of you B&T haters out there...turn off your Screaming Trees CD, get that hair out of your face, go to the beach and lighten up. Narcissistic depression and intellectual ennui are SO corporate. | positive |
great historical movie, will not allow a viewer to leave once you begin to watch. View is presented differently than displayed by most school books on this subject. My only fault for this movie is it was photographed in black and white; wished it had been in color ... wow ! | positive |
I don't know how and where do the Iranian directors get their inspiration in coming up with a plot like this. In fact, it's a very simple plot that many directors could come up with --- but may not be able to project it onto a movie the way Jafar Panahi did.<br /><br />The film is like 2 worlds revolving at the same time, one connected to the other - the football match and the battle between sexes that's going on behind the walls of the stadium.<br /><br />It makes you feel like you are in the movie and you're one of the characters, and while watching the movie, as if you also would like to have a glimpse of the football match. You will feel exactly the same excitement and sentiments as those female actors in the movie. It's gripping in a way that you wanted to see the ending, you will want to find out the verdict, you'll be dying to see what will happen to the girls.<br /><br />I like the intermittent conversations between the smoking girl and one of the military trainee. It's like venus VS mars, it really shows the difference in the thinking of men and women and the struggle of women to get equal rights and opportunity especially in a very patriarchal society like Iran.<br /><br />This is the second movie of Jafar Panahi that I have seen (the first being Crimson Gold) and am looking forward to watching some more.<br /><br />Am already hooked with Iranian movies and this one is a must-see! | positive |
When i heard they were making this i was quited happy considering the first film was pretty good, if a little on the short side.<br /><br />But then i remembered some of the Disney sequel disasters i have previously watched (im looking at you Little mermaid 2).<br /><br />Anyway i watched it and unfortunately i was very disappointed. The best thing about it is the animation is superb. It really has that special polish that the "proper" Disney films have.<br /><br />Apart from that.. the rest is disappointing. The storyline is seriously all over the place. One moment its about something, then completely changes to another storyline and then changes to another completely different storyline. It reminded me of how the Family Guy movie was like 3 separate episodes, turned into a film.<br /><br />I laughed perhaps once at the most. Kronk was very funny in the original film but in this he just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Stay away from this film, unless someone lends it to you for free.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER! | negative |
I had seen Lady with Red Hair back when it appeared, and didn't remember it as something to cherish. The truth is that, notwithstanding its base in a true story, its screen play is silly and unbelievable. The real merit of the picture is the cast. A constellation of some of the best supporting players of the 30's and 40's make a background for the delicate, intelligent work of the always underrated Miriam Hopkins, and the wonderful, spectacular performance of Claude Rains, who, as usual, is the best thing in the picture. What an actor! He never won an Oscar, but he is in the good company of Chaplin, Garbo and Hitchcock. Perhaps Lady with Red Hair contains his best work in films. See it and enjoy him.<br /><br /> | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.