review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Wow.. where do I begin. I rented this movie because it sounded like something I would be interested in watching. With a name like Val Kilmer starring in this film, I thought how bad could it be? This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen with such a big name attached to it. I was wondering why it slipped through the cracks and I never remember hearing anything about it when it first came out. It starts out pretty good, and is somewhat reminiscent of the intro sequence in the bourne identity, but after the initial 30 minutes or so it goes from bad to worse and then it ventures into WTF land. If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and don't rent/buy it unless you are a masochist or on a quest to see every Val Kilmer film out there. There are many more titles out there that are more deserving your time. This film (if you can call it that) is a bona fide waste of time. I want my 82 minutes back. | negative |
This program was on for a brief period when I was a kid, I remember watching it whilst eating fish and chips.<br /><br />Riding on the back of the Tron hype this series was much in the style of streethawk, manimal and the like, except more computery. There was a geeky kid who's computer somehow created this guy - automan. He'd go around solving crimes and the lot.<br /><br />All I really remember was his fancy car and the little flashy cursor thing that used to draw the car and help him out generally.<br /><br />When I mention it to anyone they can remember very little too. Was it real or maybe a dream? | positive |
This was soul-provoking! I am an Iranian, and living in th 21st century, I didn't know that such big tribes have been living in such conditions at the time of my grandfather!<br /><br />You see that today, or even in 1925, on one side of the world a lady or a baby could have everything served for him or her clean and on-demand, but here 80 years ago, people ventured their life to go to somewhere with more grass. It's really interesting that these Persians bear those difficulties to find pasture for their sheep, but they lose many the sheep on their way.<br /><br />I praise the Americans who accompanied this tribe, they were as tough as Bakhtiari people. | positive |
S.I.C.K. really stands for So Incredibly Crappy i Killed myself. There was absolutely no acting to speak of. The best part of the whole production was the art work on the cover of the box.The budgeting of this movie was sufficient. The filming was sub sesame street. The production looks like that of the underground filming for mob hits. The props used in this movie were stolen from a clothing store. The ending was so predictable you should fast forward to the last 5 minutes and laugh. If there is a book out there for this movie I'm sure it's better. I would avoid this at all costs. I did enjoy the intimate scenes they made the whole movie worth it. just kidding. | negative |
In sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out. | negative |
Goldie Hawn, in 1969, was best known for playing in television comedy shows - in particular ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN, where she was the giggly cookie young blond. She did make movies before CACTUS FLOWER, the most notable being a Walt Disney feature, THE ONE AND ONLY GENUINE, ORIGINAL FAMILY BAND. But CACTUS FLOWER picked up on her character from LAUGH-IN, and (due to a good script by I.A.L. Diamond - Billy Wilder's second partner - based on an Abe Burrows play) she was able to develop the television character so that a real performance was fleshed out. As a result Ms Hawn won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in 1969, and her career took off to such future hits as PRIVATE BENJAMIN and THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. Although other stars of LAUGH-IN did well on television (Henry Gibson has a recurring role as a judge on BOSTON LEGAL) only Goldie was able to have a career as a bonifide movie star.<br /><br />On LAUGH-IN Goldie's personality would show a naiveté that would be embarrassing. Occasionally she realized it, and would laugh loud to cover, but sometimes she just did not see her error (example: Goldie is introduced to the 1950s variety show host Gary Moore, and is told, "Goldie, this is Mr. Gary Moore." She shakes his hand and says (much to his confusion), "I've always wanted to meet Mr. John Gary Moore!"). But as Toni Simmons it is quite different. She is desperately in love with Dr. Julian Winston (Walter Matthau), a successful dentist, who can never marry her. Julian has told her that his wife (with whom he has had two sons and a daughter) will never give him a divorce. So at the start of the film Toni tries to commit suicide by the gas of her stove. But she is rescued by her neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz), a struggling dramatist, who breaks into her apartment and turns off the gas. <br /><br />Toni is resigned to live, but she has sent a suicide note to Julian. Igor tries to deliver a message to ignore the note but Julian's receptionist/nurse/assistant, Stephanie Dickinson (Ingrid Bergman) won't stop Julian's work schedule to pass him the phone when Igor calls. Instead Julian finds the letter and races to Toni's apartment, only to find her alive. When Igor supports her story that she tried to kill herself, Julian realizes the depth of her love, and decides he must marry such a woman. Unfortunately Toni has swallowed Julian's lies, and believes in his wife and children. You see, Julian has no wife and children. Since Toni is a firm believer that she can't marry a man who would lie to her Julian is stuck on a weakening tree branch.<br /><br />Julian comes to solve it by getting Stephanie to pretend she is Mrs. Winston. Stephanie is opposed to it at first, but on her own, on her first free Saturday, she confronts Toni at the record shop Toni is at. They talk, and Toni notices all the fine strengths of character and personality of Stephanie (and since Stephanie has her two nephews with her, Toni thinks they are Julian's kids). Toni tells Julian they have to see who is the man that Stephanie is supposedly going to marry. So the lie starts spiraling for Julian, Stephanie, and Toni. Soon a lover is given to Stephanie in the form of Julian's friend and freeloading patient Harvey Greenfield (Jack Weston). Greenfield is so sleazy (Stephanie loathes him) that Toni feels that he is unworthy of Stephanie.<br /><br />And so it goes, with one complication (most caused by the well-intentioned, misinformed Toni) following another until the conclusion. The script is full of first rate situations and one-liners (example: Julian to reward Stephanie for lying about their marriage, buys two record albums from Toni's store. He has given a mink stole to Toni, but she decides to send it to Stephanie with Julian's card. Stephanie is quite happy at getting the mink, but she does not say a word about the nature of the gift she got - when she profusely thanks Matthau, he says the thought she'd like Horowitz - meaning Vladomir Horowitz. But Stephanie thinks Horowitz is the name of the furrier!). <br /><br />Bergman must have enjoyed the filming, as several scenes shows that earthy radiance that was a trademark for her in the later 1940s films. But there was also the resemblance to her 1958 film comedy smash hit, INDISCREET. There Cary Grant lied to make sure the pair would concentrate on the romance of their affair without having to think about marriage. When Grant's lie is revealed to Bergman she decides on a lie of her own to convince Grant that she was making him a cuckold. Here, instead of being the passive lover believing Matthau is telling the truth, Bergman gingerly tries to get Matthau out of his mess by little white lies, only to find one leads to another to complicate everyone's lives. Bergman is seen as a nice woman who becomes part of the problem, despite trying to be part of the solution.<br /><br />All the leads perform well, in particular Bergman, all business thoroughness at first but gradually reclaiming her sexuality. Matthau is delightful as a man who finds a useful lie is an impediment that just can't be kicked aside. The supporting cast, especially Weston as the mooching and sexually slimy Harvey, and Vito Scotti as the U.N. ambassador who actually has the hots for Bergman. It was a clever comedy, and a really good way for Goldie Hawn's movie career to push forward. | positive |
so. i was completely in love with this movie. gaga for it, even with all its plot twists...but the one thing i found really disturbing was the connection between the two best friends in Tim and Kyle. While the writer of the film gave us such a poignant moment between the two, and their sexual experimentation/confusion, he then gives us a plot twist that makes them half brothers?!?! (Although the subject isn't brought up in the film....and left unexplained and unaccounted for) I just thought that it was in bad taste, and the fact that it wasn't even discussed is even worse. (Oops we've created a taboo...now let's not address the situation, because that wouldn't really be P.C.) Otherwise a spectacular film | positive |
This program is a favorite of our family, and we feel it MUST be released on DVD by seasons!!! The title of "Promised Land" is very apt, as it is a positive statement about all the good that is left in this great country and the people who live in her! It's a "God Bless America" type of program with inspiring stories, old-fashioned values, down-to-earth characters, truthful and encouraging messages, beautiful scenery, and well-written humor and drama. It's a show the entire family is able to enjoy and benefit from--without worrying about bad language, "adult" themes, crudeness, violence, etc. We always felt blessed when we were done viewing an episode and can't wait to see each one all over again when they're finally released on DVD! | positive |
If you are expecting to see a lot in the bath of Altıoklar, as it is promised by the tag line, you will be very disappointed to see that the movie consists of nothing but the populist style of Altıoklar regarding most famous issues like sex, marriage and cheating. To much nudity, which seems to appear from nowhere and has no connection or whatsoever to the plot proves that Altıoklar was unsuccessfully to "try something new" as he has quoted. To much sex centered jokes seems to show that Altıoklar had fallen for the famous saying which is "sex sells." I was hoping to see a very good story told with a very good narration technique. However in the end I found myself sitting down for 90 minutes and watching Altıoklar's experimental yet still to much focused on popularism work. | negative |
I don't know why I keep doing this to myself!! I keep on defending the Dutch and Belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances...and then they smack you around the head with junk like this! Intensive Care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the Dutch-speaking countries. It's a Dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise, clearly based on mainstrain American slasher classics such as Friday the 13th and Halloween. The producers and writers aimed really high with this, but fell really low. Intensive Care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. It's almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it's only showed on special occasions, like "the Night of Distaste". For exactly 5 minutes, Intensive Care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline...then it changes into a lame and low-brain slash 'n stalk movie with gruesome - yet very hilarious and cheap - make up effects. The acting of the entire cast is abominable, even though there are a few respected names involved. The leading male role is played by Koen Wauters...This guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in Belgium. He's a beloved singer, host of TV-shows and idol of many young girls. He never ever mentions this thing he starred in, though. Like everybody else in The Netherlands, he's trying to convince himself Intensive Care never happened. | negative |
if you like gangster type of movies, then this is the first one you should buy or at least rent, Al Pacino his performance is top notch. and the story is classic!! 10 / 10 !!!! Why isn't this movie in the TOP 250 list?? | positive |
It was easy for Sir Richard Attenborough to make Gandhi (1982)he was merely narrating a story of a great individual who walked on this planet not so long ago. Comparatively, it must have been a lot tougher for director Feroz Abbas Khan making his debut as a filmmaker to make Gandhi my father, pitting a shriveled anti-hero against an international hero, both of whom were historically real individuals, and ironically father and son. The events in the film are mostly real. Mahatma Gandhi lived as shown in the film, setting high moral standards for the world to follow. Yet these very standards overshadowed the aspirations of his eldest son Harilal to be a lawyer of repute like his father, to complete his education and get a job in India and thus provide income for his nuclear family.<br /><br />The film does not debunk Gandhi and his ideals. For Gandhi, his mission was larger than his family's aspirations. He loved his family and cared for them, though his thoughts for their appeasement were blinkered by his ideal of caring for the masses. He stood for equality and dignity among all persons and in his view to give special undue advantages to his own son overlooking other deserving persons went against the basis of what he preached. The film looks at an unusual case of parentingwhere an idealist parent places receding goalposts for a less-than-brilliant offspring. <br /><br />The film presents an unusual scenario that happened. A son marries his childhood sweetheart, upsetting his father. The father upsets his son's educational aspirations at several key junctures. The fragile link between a devoted son and a father breaks, as the son wants to stand on his own feet and care for his nuclear family. While the father gradually becomes the father of a nation, the son stumbles in valiant quest for identity and survival. His marriage breaks and seeks solace in religion, buffeting between Islam and Hinduism. Through all his tribulations his link to his mother remains, until she chides him for being drunk.<br /><br />Feroz Khan is essentially a director of plays making his foray into cinema. He wrote and directed the play Mahatma vs. Gandhi that had considerable impact on the Indian theater community. The play and the consequent film were based on two biographies, one by Chandulal Dalal and another by Nilamben Parekh, The success of the staged play was an evident reason for the commercial Bollywood actor Anil Kapoor to produce this noteworthy film. Every time a good director of plays attempts to direct cinema there is an evidence of a lack of confidence with the medium. Peter Brook is a great director of plays, but less competent as a film director. The opening shots of Khan's film promises great cinemaa derelict Harilal Gandhi is brought to Sion Hospital, Bombay (Mumbai) barely mumbling that his father is Bapu (the popular name of Mahatma Gandhi), father to an entire nation. The hospital authorities do not recognize him to be Mahatma Gandhi's eldest son, dying in poverty and loneliness. Apart from the dramatic opening, the film unfortunately merely presents a great story and some superb exterior shots of father and son meditating in silhouette. For an Indian film it does present some high production qualities that go hand in hand with a lack of interest for details (the clothes of most Indians in the film seem dust-free and freshly laundered, modern hairstyles of actors, and even Shefali Shetty playing Mohandas Gandhi's wife a century ago with plucked eyebrows), the bane of Indian cinema. Since Feroz Khan is a theater personality, he has invested much more effort in working with the actors in developing the characters rather than on cinematic details, somewhat like Sir Attenborough another person who is also a product of theater (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts).<br /><br />Knowing quite well that to criticize Gandhi in any manner was asking for trouble, even when there was no direct criticism in the film, producer Anil Kapoor took a remarkable decision of not putting up posters of the film at accessible heights in India, fearing that some one could tear the poster or disrespect it intentionally or unintentionally. <br /><br />With all its mix of greatness and faults, Gandhi, my father throws several questions at the viewer. Is a mother-son bonding stronger than a father-son bonding in parenting? Is one's immediate family less important than humanity at large? Does one seek refuge in religion and alcohol only when worldly troubles are encountered? In this film, Harilal buffeted by adversities runs from one religion to another, while his father quotes scriptures "Forgive them for they know not what they do" when beaten and thrown on the ground by a South African policeman, convinced of the value of religion and convincing others as well.<br /><br />The film won the Best actress award at the Tokyo International Film Festival for Shefali Shetty (Shah) and an Indian award from critics. Feroze Khan and Anil Kapoor have handled a sensitive subject very well and elicited above-average performances from the ensemble of actors. I do hope the international success of the film paves the way for some able director to film another brilliant Indian play Girish Karnad's Tughlaq some day meeting international quality standards. | positive |
It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is. | negative |
I tried to remove anything that might be considered a spoiler. I also assume that you've seen the first movie or at least know the general gist, so if you haven't some of this might not make sense.<br /><br />Plot: This movie beats the audience over the head with tired philosophical ramblings again and again in an attempt to get the theme across. We are bombarded again and again by questions of purpose, and destiny, and choice, and forced to endure the long, torturous platitude sessions that contain them.<br /><br />Neo, awakened from a dream in the last movie, now begins a period of realization about his own existence. There are a lot of revelations in this movie, which I'll be vague about so they won't seem like spoilers.<br /><br />*If you're still worried vague references will spoil the movie, don't read the paragraph below.*<br /><br />The strength and weakness of faith is revealed. The strengths and weaknesses of love, and its temporary nature, are also revealed. The interdependence of humans and technology, and our faith in technology, are also revealed. The importance of choice and experience is revealed. Explaining further things that are revealed would go into too much detail, so I will refrain (as the guidelines for writing a commentary asks). Btw, by "revealed" I mean pounded through our ears and eyes like nails.<br /><br />Storyline: So how does Neo and the gang get from the end of the last movie to the beginning of the next one? In short, they keep the faith, and use and abuse overly-stylized action and bullet-time like it's going out of style (and after this display, I'm hoping movie-goers and makers alike learn to appreciate subtlety and originality a bit more). More on that later. To not spoil anything, I will say no more than the promo material already did: Neo is still trying to figure out the Matrix, and he is looking for answers while trying to save the humans, and Zion, all while baddies are going after him and his cohorts. The movie pretty much picks up where the last one left off.<br /><br />Action: While martial arts action and gunplay peppered its predecessor in somewhat equal parts, this movie focuses much more on martial arts than gunplay, adding swords, sais, etc. to the mix. Special effects are so often used and waved in the audience's face that it becomes really tiresome. I've discussed this movie with friends and coworkers alike, and nearly all of them found some of the action sequences--especially the "Smith fight" we all heard would be in the movie--to be too long and tedious. This is a huge red flag for action fans, because the end of an action sequence should either leave you wanting a slight bit more, or completely content with the awesomeness that just occured.<br /><br />These fights scenes do neither. They are over-stylized, over-the-top sequences that are wooden and uninspired. In the first movie, there was a real sense of desperation to some of the action, a sense that fighting was for survival, not just looking good (which I honestly don't think they manage in Reloaded anyway) in black and leather. Go watch Drunken Master or Iron Monkey after this movie to remind yourself of what good fighting sequences are--you won't regret it. In addition, the "Matrix abilities" people have in Reloaded is not consistent, and what they actually do is not consistent. The first movie had its inconsistencies here, but they weren't too glaring--unlike Reloaded.<br /><br />Special effects are poured on and on and on. Every little thing someone does, be it just jump, somersault, spin, and in many cases just pose, are<br /><br />slow-moed, bullet-timed, or over-accentuated by some sort of destruction. It's evident the W Bros had a ton of money to throw at this movie, and boy did they throw it, with no real restraint. Sharp editors could have really helped this, but the first movie was such a hit that free reign was obviously given, which brings us to. . .<br /><br />Character and dialogue: I have already more or less said the dialogue was tired and full of philosophical platitudes. Actors can't really bring a lot of depth to their character when the script and direction is shoving character progression audience's face, or neglecting it altogether. The audience is at no time given nuance and substance so they can contemplate the character on their own.<br /><br />Keanu's acting performance is stiff at best. Keanu is good at acting confused, and that's about all he does in this film. He makes a decent attempt to show passion between Neo and Trinity, but it falls flat.<br /><br />Lawrence tries to make Morpheus everything from Moses to Henry V, and be as cool as a cat throughout. With the script he is provided, he makes a noble attempt, but it also falls flat.<br /><br />Moss isn't very believable either. Her look of concern is always the same, much like Keanu's, and the chemistry isn't there, although in their very physical scenes they fake it well enough.<br /><br />Hugo once again brought his weird sense of being an Agent program, but he too suffered from the script's hand. I actually find him to be the most interesting character of the bunch, but instead of development they just make him an excuse for a huge, drawn out fight scene.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is beyond disappointing if you had good expectations, and on its own, as a stand-alone movie (which is not how it's supposed to be taken), it's still horrible. I don't see The Matrix as deep, but I at least see it as an enjoyable scifi romp that has some interesting ideas, good action, a few funny lines, and enough restrained symbolism and elusions to amuse the attentive. Reloaded fails on all these counts, and I really hope the W Bros will give us a better experience in the 3rd installment. Granted, I don't have a lot of hope left for that after this film. | negative |
If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie. | negative |
It is very rare for a film to appeal to viewers of all ages--to children for a fine narrative and a wonderful, colorful production, and, to adults, for a literate script, fine production values, good casting/acting, all bound together with a fine Rozsa score. Two roughly contemporary films accomplish this--"Thief of Baghdad" (1940) and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Some of the back story on this production is fascinating. This production, commenced in England in the summer of 1939, moved to Hollywood, and proved a cover for British intelligence efforts! The producer, Alexander Korda, was subsequently knighted in 1942. Here is a unique case of the intersection of art, commerce, and politics! By all means, secure a good CD of this film for your library! | positive |
Full House is a great show. I am still today growing up on it. I started watching it when i was 8 and now i am 12 and still watching it. i fell in love with all of the characters, especially Stephanie. she is my favorite. she had such a sense of humor. in case there are people on this sight that hardly watch the show, you should because you will get hooked on it. i became hooked on it after the first show i saw, which just happened to be the first episode, in 2002. it really is a good show. i really think that this show should go down to many generations in families. and it's great too because it is an appropriate show for all ages. and for all parents, it teaches kids lessons on how to go on with their life. nothing terrible happens, like violence or swearing. it is just a really great sit-com. i give it 5 out of 5 stars. what do you think? OH and the best time to watch it is when you are home sick from school or even the old office. It will make you feel a lot better. Trust me i am hardly home sick but i still know that it will make you feel better. and to everybody that thinks the show is stupid, well that's too bad for you because you won't get as far in life even if you are happy with your life. you really should watch it and you will get hooked on it. i am just telling you what happened to me and everybody else that started watching this awesome show. well i need must go to have some lunch. remember you must start watching full house and soon! | positive |
This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film. | negative |
From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.<br /><br />The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.<br /><br />This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more. | negative |
The story starts off in the home of a little girl who is going to have a Birthday Party and both the mother and father seemed to act rather quiet and reserved with each other. They proceed to give their daughter her present which is from both of them and it stuck me funny the expressions on the two parents faces as they gave their child this gift, it was almost like, 'I hope she likes it'! There is a killing in the film and Catherine Mary Stewart,(Julia Kerbridge),"Reaper",2000, gets involved with the case because of family ties. Julia is working hard to become a doctor and this particular murder disrupts her entire life. Rob Lowe, (Kevin Finney),"View From The Top",03 is a next door neighbor in the same apartment dwelling as Julia and he eventually goes to bed with her and tries to help her in other ways. This is not a bad film, but it is certainly nothing to go crazy about, unless you like a film location in Canada and a good looking Catherine Mary Stewart, a native from Canada. | negative |
I had enjoyed the Masters of Horror Series until I came upon this infantile dung heap. <br /><br />This anti-Bush propaganda piece masquerading as a horror film comes off like an episode of the original Batman done by Michael Moore. Political satire should be clever, this however, pulls a ten on the simpleton scale with all the style and credibility of an L. Ron Hubbard film.<br /><br />In its campy, inane way, it accuses the Republicans of stealing elections, going to war for absolutely no reason and treating servicemen and women as mere cannon fodder. It even takes a swipe at the Second Amendment and religion. All that was missing was Caesar Romero as the President cackling in glee about how he orchestrated 9/11.<br /><br />I guess the ending was supposed to be the "we support our troops" moment, but I think they would be more offended than pleased with the entire endeavor.<br /><br />I'm sure the Hollywood elites are sitting in their Malbu mansions patting each other on the backs for this "pithy" work while the misinformed anti-war drones hail it as genius. <br /><br />Time to get fitted with new tinfoil hats kids. | negative |
One of the great classic comedies. Not a slapstick comedy, not a heavy drama. A fun, satirical film, a buyers beware guide to a new home.<br /><br />Filled with great characters all of whom, Cary Grant is convinced, are out to fleece him in the building of a dream home.<br /><br />A great look at life in the late 40's.<br /><br /> | positive |
A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget. | negative |
This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! <br /><br />Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".<br /><br />Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame. | negative |
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D | negative |
This movie was quite a mess. There wasn't anything really going for it. The only character that had any appeal was Bobbie Phillips' Maya and she wasn't even worth it.<br /><br />The plot is standard, double-cross the double-crossing double-crosser. With a few too many double crosses to make any sense. Sometimes that means it "keeps you guessing" in this case it "keeps you waiting". By the end I just wanted everyone to get thrown in jail or shot. | negative |
I am sorry to see that SURFACE has not been picked up for the NBC 2006-2007 season. I guess market demand for inane game and reality shows on broadcast television, a reflection on our sense of culture, has conquered a good story. I hope and pray that some network picks it up so it will continue on as does STARGATE and it's spin-offs.<br /><br />I also hope the producers find a venue where they can produce the level of Post Production they wished for in a TV Guide interview. Right now the reruns on Sci-Fi, marathons, will have to do. I for one would love to see where the story goes after the tsunami that ended Episode 15. I would like to find out the mastermind of the efficient effort to obfuscate the real identity of the creatures.<br /><br />FYC Morningbear | positive |
I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles. | positive |
I have no idea how anyone can give this movie high marks. I didn't rent it thinking it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to scare, but one fatal flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the viewing experience. The sound editing was horrible. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at 6. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll never have the chance to enjoy it. | negative |
The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.<br /><br />The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.<br /><br />And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.<br /><br />Give it a big miss. | negative |
I let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.<br /><br />That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.<br /><br />If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!<br /><br />If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!<br /><br />Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!<br /><br />The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.<br /><br />There are a whole slew of good "b" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.<br /><br />PEACE | negative |
If you're looking for an original horror flick, this might be the one for you. It's strange and at times lingers on stupidity, but it's just such a good looking, nice sounding and original movie, it never fails, except maybe during the over long climax. "Nightbreed" is a must see for horror fans, or for fans of monster movie make-up.<br /><br />Boone (Craig Sheffer) has been having dreams of a town called Midian full of mutant creatures. In therapy, his psychiatrist Dr. Decker (horror director David Cronenberg) has come to the conclusion that Boone is a murderer, and gives him hallucinogenic pills, and tells him to turn himself in. After almost getting killed, Boone ends up at the hospital, where he runs into a mental patient who also knows about Midian, and tells Boone where to go. Midian, located in a graveyard, is inhabited by vile mutant creatures that don't let Boone in. After escaping with only a nasty bite, Boone is shot dead by the police, who were lead to his location by Dr. Decker. But Boone isn't dead. The bite causes him to live, and he goes off to Midian. Meanwhile, Boone's girlfriend Lori (Anne Bobby) tries to find Boone and get to the bottom of this. When Dr. Decker also finds out about this place, chaos ensues.<br /><br />The plot seems long and complicated, but it really isn't hard to understand. The plot, among other things, makes this movie really interesting. The make-up effects are astounding. The creatures look unique and amazing, and make this a very appealing film. To add to more senses appeal, we have a musical score by Danny Elfman, that is both lush and bouncy, and fits the film like a glove. The shots in the movie are also set up beautifully. The cinematography is lovely, and the movie sets up an atmosphere that is never broken. Even the acting is good, with the biggest surprise being director David Cronenberg giving a great, menacing performance as the man, who for one reason or another, wants to see Boone dead. It's odd for a horror film to be this well done.<br /><br />The problems with the movie...well there are a few, but the positives outweigh the negatives. The script features the occasional lame jokes to try and add some humor, but almost every one falls flat. The mutant creatures look great and for the most part are well acted, but sometimes it feels like they are just posing their awesome makeup for the camera. The worst part of the film would have to be the climax. It takes so long, and is just constant chaos. It's the portion of the film that moves from individual characters and nice tight knit shots, to fiery explosions from each direction and violence happening to characters we don't know or care about.<br /><br />Overall, this movie is amazing to look at. It's a well done horror film, but even with that said, it has the occasional failure in character's lines, and a messy climax. Nonetheless, this is one to check out.<br /><br />My rating: *** out of ****. 101 mins. R for strong violence and language. | positive |
My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jirí Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.<br /><br />In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.<br /><br />This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.<br /><br />The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right. | positive |
This relic from before the days of the Production Code and the Hays Office is good fun, not great but entertaining.<br /><br />Based on a song by Rogers & Hart that was an enormous hit at the time, the story revolves around dance hall girl Barbara Stanwyck who is romanced by wealthy businessman Ricardo Cortez (who was indecently handsome), but whose heart belongs to her bookish neighbor Monroe Owsley. She and Owsley marry, but keep it a secret, while she dismisses Cortez, who still holds out hope. She helps hubby get a job in Cortez's company, but married bliss quickly turns sour as Owsley develops a taste for the high life and steps out with a college sweetheart and gambles in high-stakes bridge (Yup! I know, it's pretty funny....). Finally he embezzles $5,000 from Cortez, and is about to go on the lam, when his devoted wife goes to Cortez....and I won't reveal anything else, although the ending was certainly a surprise.<br /><br />Stanwyck is the best thing about this movie; in one of her earliest roles she's quite accomplished. Owsley is the weak point; he's unattractive and sniveling, while Cortez is amazingly suave and sexy, while his performance is earnest but unremarkable.<br /><br />While ostensibly a drama, it's filled with laughs, many inadvertant as some elements of this movie have aged very poorly. But there are a lot of good witty lines; at one point Stanwyck says to Cortez, "My brains are in my feet, while yours are in...." That's pretty darn suggestive for 1931! There's a lot of bawdy and suggestive stuff in this flick, in the last days before the Code clamped down and whitewashed everything. An amusing antique, a good reminder of how far we haven't come in 70 years....this story could very easily be changed to fit 2003 but could keep the basic plot, with the original ending, in place. | positive |
There's really not a lot to say about Las Vegas Lady. It's harmless enough, but it is little more than a dull heist film from the 70s. The movie is neither as clever nor as sexy as it strives to be. The plot is a retread of the tired old casino robbery storyline that's been done to death. Except in the case of Las Vegas Lady, I think the robbery plot was designed by a 3 year-old. The plan involves three women one to unnecessarily and in plain view scale the outside of the Circus Cicus building, one to pose as a waitress only to blow her cover at the first opportunity, and one to stand around exposing her cleavage. That's pretty much it. Intricate, huh? Other than Stella Stevens and her aforementioned breasts, the other women involved in the plot aren't particularly memorable. Las Vegas Lady co-stars Stuart Whitman. When not pawing Stevens, his involvement in the movie is highlighted by one of the most idiotic gun fights ever put on film.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie. It does have that 70s feel to it that I always enjoy and some nice shots of Las Vegas circa 1975. But the movie itself is too dull to rate any higher than a 4/10 and that's probably overstating it. In the end, Las Vegas Lady is a waste of some perfectly good cleavage. | negative |
Be prepared for the Trip to Haneke's "La pianiste"...The psychological sickness of the main character, wonderfully played by Huppert, goes beyond any limit you could expect. The most stunning part of it is that you start feeling compassion for the character Erika. Trash-Sexuality (no nudes scenes though), perversion, masochism, incestuous relations...Haneke gives us a crude meal, heavy to digest; sometimes, the only way you can escape the extremism of some scenes is to start laughing at it. The "mise en scène" is maybe not the most appealing part of the movie, it has obvious austro-germanic, sometimes scandinavian notes : static, long scenes, but never boring. The vienna settings, the french language used, make the whole look like a european blend. The permanent germanic music Background (Schubert) is beautifully chosen. Above all, both of the Cannes awards for best actors are well deserved: one of the greatest performance of the year by one of the greatest french actress ever. | positive |
This is just one of those movies that continually make you groan and that I wished was over. The problems are many and the good points are few. I feel the main problem with this movie is that it has what amounts to a cheesy plot and they try to make it out to be a epic movie, which a movie about super evil monkeys and smart ones that sign just is not epic, it is cheese. When you have cheese you make the movie more fun. Granted, the final scene with the monkeys and that laser was very nice to watch and more of things of that nature was needed. Instead the actors are doing such a serious job that you feel the movie just has a corny plot amid all the serious tension the movie is trying to set up. The plot revolves around a woman trying to find what happened to her missing ex-husband while also searching for some sort of legendary diamonds. She uses these two guys who trained an ape to do sign language and now wish to return her to the wild as cover to get into the country and begin the mediocre adventure of a lifetime. The only things that make this movie somewhat tolerable is Ernie Hudson's character and the laser attack at the end. | negative |
OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that. | negative |
this was a fabulous adaptation of Jane Eyre. the only problem i had with it was that i didn't like Zelah Clarke. i thought she was too old and made Jane seem much to timid. in the book Jane seemed like a much stronger character. i was really annoyed by this portrayal of her. the part where it's the morning after Rochester asks her to marry him and she runs up to him and hugs him always makes me laugh. i think they made a bad choice in casting her. but Dalton was absolutely wonderful as Rochester. he makes this version of Jane Eyre worth seeing. another thing that made this version not quite 100% was the quality of film. i know it was made in the eighties for TV. if it had been a feature film, and better quality, it would have been perfect. my main complaint however, is that Zelah Clarke was definitely too old. | positive |
After seeing Meredith in "Beyond the Prairie" I had to buy another film with her staring. I cannot believe how she let herself into this teenage flick. It's best to watch this one with the sound off but just concentrate on Meredith as she moves across the screen. Save your money until the TV network comes out with a DVD on "Beyond the Prairie". It's worth it at any price, this one needs to pay you to see. <br /><br />This pretty lady needs someone to put her into a script that can use both her talent as an actress and her beauty as a woman. Perhaps some of her latest might fit but I haven't seen them. She has the smile of a Cathrine Bell and eyes of Dana Delany with a much younger body.<br /><br /> | positive |
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you | negative |
"House of Dracula" isn't all that bad of a film and is rather decent at times.<br /><br />**SPOILERS**<br /><br />Arriving at the home of Dr. Franz Edelmann, (Onslow Stevens) in his seaside home, Count Dracula, (John Carradine) discreetly seeks a cure for vampirism. He starts work on a potential cure involving blood transfusion, the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, (Lon Chaney Jr.) arrives at his estate looking for a cure to lycanthropy. Working with the two patients, he discovers a possible cure in a mold found near the laboratory, and after searching the area, he finds the Frankenstein Monster, (Glenn Strange) buried nearby. Becoming obsessed with reviving it, Dr. Edelmann keeps neglecting Dracula and Larry's requests, and after demanding that they get their treatment instead of him working on the Monster, they turn on each other in a climactic showdown.<br /><br />The Good News: This was a rather decent film. There is one main idea that is quite creative and imaginative. This is the first film to openly propose the idea of vampirism as a blood disease, and one that can be transferred from person to person through the exchange of bodily fluid, something that would be taken up by later genre works but rarely as directly as this. There's even a microscope slide of the parasite that is believed responsible for the condition. It works in some rather nicely used ideas and comes across as a rather nifty idea, even if some of the execution is a little stale. The fact that each of the creatures has at least one standout scene is a nicely done idea. The Wolf Man has a marvelous scene where he transforms inside a prison cell to the doubting members of the search party and goes crazy. Dracula's initial appearance of appearing as a bat and flying toward a prone figure sleeping and then appearing in human form looks really impressive. The Monster rampage is well handled and an appropriate amount of destruction is caused. The large bat that Dracula transforms into always looks decent for once, and is quite realistically done. It's a thoroughly decent affair.<br /><br />The Bad News: There are several things that weren't all that great about this one. The fact that the film combines so much potentially intriguingly plots and ideas that it really doesn't know what to do with them. There are several different back-stories that have to be mingled together and which should be clear enough to mix well together and seem coherent. This really doesn't have any of that. The plot is rather flimsy and doesn't really give a preferential treatment to any of the stars, and instead concentrates on one then another and then includes all three in the ending. The monsters only seem to get engaged with each other for the smallest possible reason makes it a big distraction. The ending is for once a big let-down, and seems entirely like it was changed at the last minute. There's a few other small things that weren't all that spectacular, and pretty much also contribute to this.<br /><br />The Final Verdict: It's quite a decent film and manages to get through most of the time with an entertaining style. Nowhere near the classic status of each monsters' debut features, but it's a nice enough watch for fans of the monsters and of Universal films in general.<br /><br />Today's Rating-PG: Violence | positive |
This episode introduced the Holodeck to the TNG world. The Jarada have to be contacted and a precise greeting must be delivered or it would greatly insult them. A tired Picard decides to take a trip into the Holodeck and a wonderful adventure begins. The settings are superb and almost movie like. Alas, the Jarada probe sent shortly thereafter damages the holodeck and all it's safety devices stop working. Picard and now guests must outwit the mobsters of gangland 40s America and return to the Jarada rendezvous. Picard greets the Jarada correctly and a new day dawns between Humanity and the Jarada. This gem of a first season episode set the holodeck for many interesting and unusual adventures to be had there | positive |
I must have been in a good mood to give this shameful, predictable, embarrassing movie even a 3. What's wrong with it? Let's start with the gratuitous sex although I admit the rotational style of bonking was something I had not seen (nor experienced) before. And I guess they also saved a few bucks by showing the same sex scene three times. Then there are the inconsistencies. The "Oakville Tribune" seems to be in a green part of whatever town it was supposed to be. (Hamilton Ontario???) Yet in the scenes on the roof, it appears to be in an industrial area with a steel mill belching smoke and flames. Also, the inside of the building --- the newsroom --- the stairways --- seem much bigger than the outside. SPOILERS HERE Then, when our intrepid reporter finally gets fired, she comes back to the building several times, once after hours. Hardly likely. The ending is also pitifully predictable...the classic bait and switch caper in which the good guy turns out to be the bad guy. But my major objection is the fact this is yet another movie financed with Canadian and Ontario tax credits which is ashamed to set itself in Canada, yet again proving that the Canadian film industry is craven and opportunistic. A country's movies must do more than just provide jobs. They should reflect the culture. It's bad enough that the American studios use Toronto as a stand in for New York. But it is embarrassing and infuriating when Canadian producers (in this case, CanWest Global) do it with help from the federal and provincial governments. In a word... BAH! | negative |
I own this movie and have watched it several times throughout the years since it was released. Prince doesn't stun us with his phenomenal acting style or anything, he's a musician and I feel like that is what he displayed here, he's just the best one to tell this story through influence. Most of this movie is straightforward and teenish but that is the directors/writers fault, still it is a great movie with even better music. The principals and moral convictions in Purple Rain are quite strong and if more movies would rely on the basics we are taught as young children we would have a better all around environment seeing that art reflects life which reflects art. | positive |
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid. | negative |
The story of this film is truly remarkable. A virus cut loose and only 1% of the human race survived. The only thing we know now is that animals rule the land above and there are posters everywhere that say, "The Twelve Monkeys did it." Thats right, the human race had to hide underground from the sickness that had killed over 500 Billion people. Apparently animals do not contract this disease. Day by day the present scientist try to discover what type of sickness had caused this; how it was created; if nature did it or a mere human being had created it. All they know is that there is are a bunch of animals running around a city above them, the deaths began during 1996-1997, and twelve monkeys have something to do with it. (Or at least thats what the poster says.) So a current convict named James Cole (Bruce Willis) is sent as a "volunteer" to get some samples from above. After he does his "volunteer" work, he is asked to be sent back in time to the year 1996 to figure out what happened to the world. Cole accepts and the story of the Twelve Monkeys begin.<br /><br />Throughout the story the time machine gets the dates wrong quite a few times, from 1990, to some time during the 1950's. (In a middle of a war.) Throughout the time traveling back and forth, it starts to mess James up in the head and that twist the story up. The whole story is very well done and I would of gave it a higher grade if it wasn't for the ending. I personally didn't like the ending of the movie and I was very disappointed. I just was expecting a more explaining ending then what had happen, but it isn't everyone who thinks this way. So I gave it a 8, but if everyone had the same opinion as me I would give it a 6 or 7.<br /><br />For the whole acting of the film, I give it a A+. Bruce Willis is great for this role and he acts good, but Brad Pitt is completely 100% excellent. His acting is so great, he gets into the character so well. I never really cared for Brad Pitt in till I saw him in this and Fight Club. There characters or similar in this film, he is just a little more... insane in this film. So overall I think this film is completely worth checking out. For most people it's a great science fiction film, I just don't think it is a masterpiece. | positive |
Peter Crawford discovers a comet on a collision course with the moon. But when the government doesn't believe him (dumb fact #1). He builds a shelter in deep underground and is drawing lots to see who will go. Plus is willing to kill to save humanity (dumb fact #2). With millions of dollars of technology, how could a civilian see what NASA could not? Plus, the ends justifies the means moral of this story is just plain WRONG!!! This movie is improbable and totally unbelievable. What was running through these people minds, why the hell do crap piles like this get the green light? Some times I wonder who someone has to **** to get a movie made in this ****ing town. | negative |
Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk! | negative |
Yokai Monsters: Spook Warfare (Yokai daisenso, 2005) a movie about "yokai" or traditional Japanese "monsters" of folklore. It is alternatively known as Big Monster War or as Ghosts on Parade.<br /><br />The yokai of the first installment include the teapot freak, kappa water imp, a living 'brella, a woman whose sheeks can grow extremely gigantic, a woman with a second face on the back of her head, a dwarf priest with an enormous gourd-like wrist, & so on.<br /><br />These sorts of whimsical monsters derive not only from fairy lore, but from a type of summer entertainment of the Tokugawa Era, comparable to today's Halloween haunted houses, or the "freak shows" of yesteryear but with exclusively phony freaks. Ghosts & goldfish monsters & dancing one-headed umbrellas were trumped up to create "chills" during the hot summers. The fatcheek woman & such were recreated by tricks or illusions, based on monsters depicted in medieval scrolls; & if their design for the movie is a bit simple & hoky, this makes them all the more representative of what historically was recreated for summer chills.<br /><br />These rather endearing monsters have to face off & destroy an ancient Babylonian vampire demon who has come to Japan & disguised himself as a samurai lord. Despite that some of the Japanese apparitions are a bit goofy, & too many of the costumes scarsely more than masks without even moving lips as they speak, it is all played very poker-faced & is very charming. It has some beautiful cinematography, much as would be provided in a CGI film of the same decade. Viewed in the right mood or with the right friends, it is exciting, moving & touching.<br /><br />Yoshiyuki Kuroda also directed the famed Lone Wolf & Cub: White Heaven & Hell (1974) &and was the special FX director for the excellent Daimajin trilogy. The Yokai Monsters series is not the equal of Majin at its best, but the Yokai are nevertheless great fun. The first miike movie which is the most child-oriented of his family films, with the GOZU & IZOO consecutively more serious though none too severe for young viewers. | positive |
This picture is a bad and blown up rip off of the Michael Pohl short film EXTINCT from 1995. While Michael Pohl's idea was original and perfect for a short film setting, A SOUND OF THUNDER's plot was poorly adapted from Pohl's story and not fit for a full length feature film one would expect from a major Hollywod studio. The tragic flooding situation that ruined the sets in Prague was just one bad link in a long rusty film production chain in this case. For a studio to release such a product... it is a shame. Especially for Warner Brothers, a studio which broke new effects grounds with shows like BABYLON 5 in 1993. On TELEVISION. Visual effects for television shows pioneering CGI in episodic television in the mid nineties were way more sophisticated than what is brought to the screen in this picture. In cases like this, sad as it may be: Can the film. | negative |
This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up. | negative |
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.<br /><br />One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed. | negative |
Overlong drama that isn't capable of making any real point. So she became an actress - so what? She learned to love - big deal. There is a certain eccentricity among the characters and in the dialog and situations, but the kind which is bad for the movie, causing it to often seem absurd.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix, playing the lead, talks and behaves like a semi-retarded person, so there is no choice but to watch the movie as about a retarded girl that makes it in the world of theater - which was clearly not the intended point. We are told early on (in that "Barry Lyndon"-like narration) that she learned to hide her emotions, which certainly explains her autistic stone-face, but the movie suffers for it. She basically walks around like a zombie, and her success as an actress isn't quite credible given her lack of emotions. Occasionally, the movie had that dull, sleepy feel of a Dogma 95 movie. Is it one? I wouldn't be at all surprised.<br /><br />Summer Phoenix is sister of Joaquim Phoenix and the late River Phoenix. Nepotism rarely works.<br /><br />If you'd like to see my Hollywood Nepotism List, with over 350 pictures/entries, contact me by e-mail. | negative |
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry. | negative |
I got lured by the title... I was expecting an insightful and intriguing journey into alcoholism, instead I got a rather boring and uninspiring story about a rowdy Scot.<br /><br />The leading character isn't given much psychological depth, unless you are willing to classify cheesy teen-like poetry as psychology.<br /><br />It was a shame, because the core of the story could have been good, with a better effort to depict the inner feelings of a man who had to live with alcohol and violence since his youth.<br /><br />Sadly, the general idea seems to be more like "I'm the way I am because that's the way I am". And the laughingly bad attempt at giving some sort of poetic edge to a lower-class man makes things even worse. Resorting to the overused cliché of the "poète maudit" reeks of a quick fix, a cheap way to make a dull movie seem smart, artsy and meaningful.<br /><br />But "16 years of alcohol" isn't much smart, artsy or meaningful... The leading character doesn't evolve at all, and the feeble attempt of changing fails without a good explanation. Just like the initial attempt happened rather out of the blue.<br /><br />The movie borrows heavily from classics such as A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, but it ultimately fails to recapture their greatness, not even for a few seconds.<br /><br />Jobson put too much emphasis on the artistic side of the story, and neglected the rest, giving us a movie which is pleasant to the eye but insipid to the brain. | negative |
Being a self confessed slasher addict means that it's very rare that I get the chance to review many bigger budgeted movies with creditable casts. Aside from James Mangold's successful box office draw Identity; there have not been any big name entries since the Scream trilogy once again put Wes Craven's name back on the Hollywood map. That's why Mark Malone's The Last Stop a mystery thriller with blatant slasher overtones, instantly intrigued me. With a decent line-up including Adam Beach and Jurgen Prochnow and an intriguing soundtrack that even finds space for Lynn Anderson's Rose Garden, I must admit that the initial signs were very positive for this claustrophobic feature. To the best of my knowledge there have only ever been three other snow-bound slashers, unless of course you consider Demon Possessed to fit in the category. The first slice and dice on the ice was the bone-dry Satan's Blade, then came the Lisa Loring cheese-feast that was Blizzard of Blood and the enjoyable Shredder followed some fourteen years later.<br /><br />During an extreme blizzard, state trooper Jason (Adam Beach) battles through the snow to reach a remote lodge in the Colorado Mountains. His task is to inform the guests that the road is closed and they must stay for at least one more night until a path can be cleared through the hazardous conditions. This news doesn't go down to well with the suspicious bunch, which includes two troublemaking brothers (Callum Keith Rennie and Peter Flemming), a truck driver that really doesn't want to hang around (William S. Taylor), a randy couple of lovers (Winston Rekert and Amy Adamson) and Jason's ex-girlfriend Nancy (Rose McGowan). The motel owners (Jurgen Prochnow and P. Lynn Johnson) aren't overjoyed by the news either, but they offer rooms to the stranded guests and attempt to calm the tense situation. Things take a turn for the worse when Jason finds a mutilated body and a bag full of stolen cash lying in the snow behind the cafe. Just like a chapter out of an Agatha Christie mystery, the lodgers begin dieing at the hands of a masked assailant that seems intent to re-claim the money. With so many dodgy characters to choose from and no way of leaving the crime scene, Jason has to attempt to stop the maniac before he kills again
<br /><br />A good mystery needs at least a handful of shady suspects who each have a credible motive, a remote location that no one can escape from and a smart protagonist to help unravel the clues. Fortunately The Last Stop provides each of those essential ingredients in a thriller that has its equal moments of brilliance and downright stupidity. The film kicks off superbly as the dubious personalities clash in a claustrophobic environment that manages to keep the tension running high throughout the runtime. Malone keeps the interest levels raised as each character unveils their own reasons to attract some of the suspicion, and to be fair the essential twist isn't one that you'll guess easily. In fact I found myself watching the movie through once again to see if I could pick up on any hints that I missed first time around. Unfortunately when the maniac is revealed to be an over the top psycho that wisecracks like a comic book bad guy, The Last Stop forfeits a huge amount of credibility. Thankfully all is not lost when an unexpected and brilliantly orchestrated plot twist salvages the film's finale.<br /><br />Similarities can be drawn with the excellent Identity, as the two plots are almost interchangeable. James Mangold's effort has to be the better of the two mainly because of the star billing of John Cusack and the ever-reliable Ray Liotta. With that said though Adam Beach does a good enough job in the lead, while Jurgen Prochnow, Amy Adamson and the brilliant Callum Keith Rennie add some credible support. Rose McGowan acts as conceitedly in this role as she probably does from day to day in reality and Winston Rekert started fantastically before going completely overboard with the film's climax. If you're a die-hard slasher fan that's watching this for some bloody killings then you're going to be disappointed. The balaclava-wearing psychopath only pops up once and the rest of the murders are committed off-screen. But as I said earlier Malone's directorial talent means that the suspense is never too far off the boil and you can forgive the few flaws because the positives just about triumph.<br /><br />The Last Stop is well worth a look for slasher addicts and movie fans alike. Yes there are a handful of negatives, but overall this is a solid example of emerging Hollywood talents. If you liked Identity then certainly give this a try
| positive |
I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.<br /><br />Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.<br /><br />The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.<br /><br />It will change you if you do. | positive |
I really like this movie. I can watch it on a regular basis and not tire of it. I suppose that is one of my criteria for a great movie.<br /><br />The story is very interesting. It introduces us to 6 characters; each has a unique kung fu style that is very secret and very deadly. Each of these characters are trained by the same master but their identities are kept secret from each other. The dying master sends the 6th venom, his last student, to attempt to make right the wrongs that he suspects some of his students have committed.<br /><br />How will the last pupil find the other venoms? How will he know which of them is bad? The way these questions are answered is part of what makes this movie great.<br /><br />We also get to see the venoms fight each other in every combination. It is fun to see how their styles match up against each other.<br /><br />If you want to see if you like kung fu movies, this is a good movie to start with. It doesn't get any better than this. | positive |
"Witchery" is a decent little Euro-Trash horror yarn! David Hasselhoff is pretty damn funny in this one and sadly, he's one of the better actors. Linda Blair is downright terrible and the lady who plays Hoff's wife...she is hilariously bad! The plot of this film is ridiculous too. It's got some holes, which you can't help but notice, but it remains entertaining throughout.<br /><br />The gore in "Witchery" is freaking outstanding. I loved the part where the old bag gets "sucked" into the trash chute and ends up in the chimney to roast! And the part where the lady "gets taken advantage of" by the Devil was pretty damned disturbing. I'd say this one is a must for gorehounds.<br /><br />If you're looking for an overproduced, well-acted flick, look elsewhere. But if you like old-school style Italian sleaze and over the top gore, "Witchery" belongs on your shelf.<br /><br />I'm surprised by the low rating on here! What were you people expecting, "The Exorcist?" 7 out of 10, kids. | positive |
I have the good common logical sense to know that oil cannot last forever and I am acutely aware of how much of my life in the suburbs revolves around petrochemical products. I've been an avid consumer of new technology and I keep running out of space on powerboards - so I know that even the energy crunch associated with Peak Oil will change my life appreciably.<br /><br />The End Of Suburbia shows, in a rational and entertaining manner, just how much my whole family's lifestyle will have to change in my lifetime. I am particularly concerned for the future generations who will have to pick up the tab for our excesses, however the film-makers do offer a glimmer of hope in that they acknowledge human resourcefulness and determination - and the sense of community that tends to be engendered by shared hardship.<br /><br />There is no point in trying to pretend that Peak Oil is baseless propaganda - or in treating it like the approaching radioactive cloud in "On The Beach" (i.e. with suicide pills at the ready). Even with our best efforts, times will get harder all over, and I'm hoping there's enough compassion and humanity to go around. | positive |
Squeamish 11-year-old Luke Benward (as Billy "Worm Boy" Forrester) moves to a new town. At his new school, young Benward is picked on by the other boys. They put worms in his thermos. Getting his gag reflex under control, Benward tosses a worm on freckle-faced bully Adam Hicks (as Joe Guire). Benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day - without regurgitation! <br /><br />Tall, teased Hallie Kate Eisenberg (as Erika "Erk" Tansy) uses her archery skills to help Benward. Director and former SCTV writer Bob Dolman promises, "No worms were harmed in the making of this movie." In a related note, SCTV star Andrea Martin has one funny scene. "How to Eat Fried Worms" is loosely based on Thomas Rockwell's popular novel. Pre-teen kids into gross-outs should enjoy the film.<br /><br />**** How to Eat Fried Worms (8/25/06) Bob Dolman ~ Luke Benward, Adam Hicks, Hallie Kate Eisenberg, Alexander Gould | negative |
Morte a Venezia is one of my favorite movies. More than beautiful, it's really sublime. It gives you important aesthetic experiences, it's a masterpiece. I also recommend the novel. Luchino Visconti is a genius. | positive |
This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?<br /><br />This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.<br /><br />And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.<br /><br />Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.<br /><br />3/10 for the fine editing. | negative |
Solange is not a great Italian thriller. Get ready for the spoiler - the main suspect, the professor, didn't do it. But is it really a spoiler? No, because you know that he couldn't have been the murderer from the very beginning; he and a student witnessed the first murder. So, there is absolutely no suspense as to whether or not the professor is the killer. There is a long, tedious build up to the final explanation of the mystery. The solution is interesting, but it comes out of nowhere. The rest of the movie (and it's not a short movie) is just not exciting enough to hold your interest. Even in the tradition of "wrong man accused" it fails, because the police never seriously accuse the professor, and the killer is never after him. Dull, dull, dull. | negative |
I hated the first episode of this show ( 'Protesting Hippies' ) so much in 1999 that I shunned the rest. However, when it came on 'The Paramount Comedy Channel' I watched it in full and, to my surprise, found it absolutely hilarious ( Motto: never judge a comedy series in its first week )! <br /><br />Set in 1969, 'Hippies' stars Simon Pegg as 'Ray Purbbs', editor of an 'Oz'-like underground magazine called 'Mouth'. His friends are the feminist Jill, laid-back Alex, and the half-wit Hugo. Back in the late '60's, there was a feeling of incredible optimism amongst the young, that they could change the world through the printing of magazines nobody read. Rather than sneering at the hippies' naivety, 'Hippies' is affectionate towards it. Arthur Mathews' scripts cheekily parody a number of that era's icons - 'Hair', 'Woodstock', 'The Graduate', even the infamous 'Oz' obscenity trial of the early '70's. Excellent performances from the cast; Julian Rhind-Tutt's 'Alex' strangely put me in mind of the Richard O'Sullivan character from 'Man About The House'. Its a shame that there was never a second series, possibly because of people like me. If you missed 'Hippies', give it a try. Once you get past the dire opener, you're in for a treat! | positive |
With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, "Aau Chin" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.<br /><br />Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?<br /><br />The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.<br /><br />A 3/10 .... | negative |
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb. | negative |
Gary Busey did a splendid job playing the rock-n-roll legend Buddy Holly(1936-59). He does have a spitting image to the man. Being a garage band in the 50's is sure different from today's. Having a group of three is usually simple back in those days. I bet that Buddy Holly(Busey) was a much better musician than most of what I heard. Since he lived in Lubbock, Texas, it was only a quiet country town back then. His parents were Christians, though his mother was a strong supporter of her son's work. That's one of the reasons he didn't act like Elvis. He stuck to his kinder ways. That really makes him good! When he went to Tennessee, he saw how bad the producers were. They hated rock-n-roll, that turned Holly off big time. Getting used to the different atmosphere was a challenge to Holly and his friends. He got to tour with Sam Cooke, went to the famous Apollo, which the all-Afro-American audience quickly accepted them, I liked that! And Sam Cooke made sure Holly and his band got some service. That's what I call tolerance. It's sad that he, Ritchie Valens, and J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson had their music careers cut short by a plane crash in 1959, at least their memories will live on in our hearts. I don't what inaccuracies were in the movie, all I care is that Buddy Holly overcame the obstacles of music and politics in that time, and the music is nearly-perfect. For Gary Busey, he was perfect in the role, and making the music as well. GOD BLESS YOU GARY BUSEY! 5 STARS! | positive |
I had the honor this evening to see a screening of the movie "These Girls" at the Philadelphia Film Festival. Going into the movie, I knew very little about it and just took a chance on it because the film's plot sounded interesting. So as I entered the theater just hours ago I wondered what the final verdict would be thumbs up or thumbs down.<br /><br />"These Girls" is the story about three best friends from a small town. Keira (Caroline Dhavernas) is the ringleader who basically doesn't know what to do with her life after High School but her father keeps pushing her to go to college which is something she doesn't want to do. Lisa (Holly Lewis) will be going away to a Christian school after the summer. And finally, Glory (Amanda Walsh) who plans on spending her summer babysitting. But this summer is going to be a special one as they all blackmail Keith Clark (David Boreanaz) the sexy older hunk who they baby-sit for. Fun times and a lot of laughs ensue
<br /><br />I normally don't like movies like "These Girls" but there is something about this movie that I really liked. I think the quality I liked most about it was that it seemed rather realistic. Three girls who want to explore their sexuality pick a hunky guy who lets all of them have sex with him only to be blackmailed by them later. It's a pretty funny tale about growing up, friendship and sex but even though it sounds pretty cheesy I can see majority of this film happening in real life.<br /><br />The subject matter here is probably a main reason why this film didn't get a mainstream release in the United States. All the girls in this film are suppose to be under 18 which if I remember correctly two of them are 17 and one is 16. Now in the USA even though underage sex occurs on a daily basis many production or finance companies won't finance a film like this because of the sexual content. This information was actually confirmed by the director himself John Hazlett at the Q&A after the film. The thing that gets me is that the sex scenes in this film aren't graphic and the nudity is minor. Not to mention that all the actresses in this film are way over 18 in real life. Go figure.<br /><br />What the movie does best is it provides a lot of laughs as well as very strong characters. I liked all the characters in this movie and each character seemed to have a "Now & Then" characteristic to them. The jokes were funny because they were cleverly written not because they were dirty or over the top. Everything seemed to flow together nicely both the comedy and the drama. The script was very strong.<br /><br />The acting was very good for the most part. I thought all the three girls were great. Caroline Dhavernas who also starred in one of the most underrated television series of all time "Wonderfalls" was just terrific; as well as Holly Lewis and Amanda Walsh who both did a fine job as well. David Boreanaz did a good job and he looked like he was having fun while shooting most of the scenes. The guy played a pot head so it was funny seeing him play that role.<br /><br />I had the pleasure of meeting John Hazlett tonight who seemed like a very nice guy and was very appreciative of the comments made about the film. I am shocked that this movie didn't go anywhere. I think with a little marketing behind it, it could have taken off. Sadly it's going to be one of these direct to DVD films which so few will ever have the pleasure to see. I think with what little budget Mr. Hazlett had to work with, the film turned out well and I think he did a fine job directing this little gem.<br /><br />For someone who typically hates teen sex comedies I can honestly say I really enjoyed this film. The character development and witty script allowed me to sit there for an hour and a half and be amused. This is a fine comedy because it has heart and spunk to it. I know I will be sure to buy this film when it comes on DVD on May 16, 2006. If you're a fan of coming of age stories, teen sex comedies, or romantic comedies be sure to check this film out because it's one of the funniest films of its kind to be released in years.<br /><br />MovieManMenzel's final rating for "These Girls" is an 8/10. | positive |
Here's what you have to remember about this movie.... IT'S A KIDS MOVIE!!!!! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm an 80s child. I was obsessed with Rainbow Brite. So, naturally I love this movie. But if you watch the other Rainbow Brite movies this one is by far the best. But, like I said, it's a kids movie. You have to judge it as a kids movie. It doesn't matter to kids if the acting, animation or script is fantastic or even good. All they care about is what happens to the characters. If the good guy (or girl) wins then it's a great movie. If not, then it's bad. You all know what I mean. You were all kids once. | positive |
This movie was well done but it also made me feel very down at times as well. For anyone that is considering show business this is a must see as it shows the raw deal in what goes on for these struggling workers. The soundtrack was definitely cool and the acting and dancing complimented it nicely. Some of the student's attitudes might have been a little far-fetched like Leroy's especially because I'm sure someone like that would've been kicked out immediately for refusing to read and such if this was the real High School For Performing Arts. The Coco screen test is hard to watch for any people out there with weak stomachs, please heed my warning. While it's very gritty I know it's the truth on what happens so in this respect the movie is right on. Overall it's entertaining and even though some parts drag on the majority goes by really quickly.<br /><br />Final Grouping:<br /><br />Movies: Probably would've skipped this one.<br /><br />DVD Purchase: Not something I'd need to see again and again.<br /><br />Rental: Worth renting at least once in your life! | positive |
I really wanted to love this movie, and not only cause it had Aaron Eckhart in it but I thought the premise would be cool cause I enjoy movies and shows that revolves around chefs. The cinematography was good but besides it being revolved around chefs everything else is just very cliché. Oh and Little Miss Sunshine was very irritating in this movie although Abigail Breslin seems to be a bit irritating in every movie she is in cause she plays a lot of roles where she is whinny. It has some decent flashes of cooking, but food really didn't play a big part in the movie than I expected which was a big disappointment for me. This film had some good potential, the cast was great but they just had very little to work with. I like a good light hearted romantic comedy but this was just bland. And longer than it should be cause it felt way longer than it is. It's not a terrible movie, you just won't miss anything by not watching this movie.<br /><br />4.5/10 | negative |
A slick production which holds the interest from the very first scene where Max is choosing a ring in a jeweller's shop. Much of what follows reminds us of Shakespeare's "A Mid-summer Night's Dream" in which Demetrius and Lysander fall in love with each other's girl-friends. Here Max and Lucien both prone to love at first sight get mixed up with Lisa and Alice, and Alice complicates things when she calls herself Lisa. On top of the merry mix-up, Max is inclined to get involved in incidents which bring back memories of two years ago. And because Max has a lot of these dreamy episodes we are subjected to one flashback after another,too many in my opinion because at first viewing of the film , I wasn't quite sure if I was in the present or the past.There is much running down corridors, stairways, through doorways, into elevators etc. I accept all that in a fast-paced film but do we have to have so many people colliding with each other? After four collisions it ceases to have any impact, if you'll excuse the pun. High marks for art design! The apartment itself is really beautiful with its tasteful decor, but I do ask myself how a couple of young women can afford such luxury in Paris. Saving a person intent on suicide from jumping out of a window is always exciting and it is in this film too when Max almost exits at the same time. However a kiss or two soon makes him feel better. If you can manage to find your way through all the flashbacks, you'll finally find yourself at the airport where Max's devoted sister gives him a most affectionate kiss. It can be said it is she who resolves the complications of love, like Puck in a "Mid-summer Night's Dream". | positive |
I'm no director or writer or anything related to a movie. But watching more than 1 movie everyday has given me the idea of what is a good movie or not. So here it is: The quick and the undead is a rip-off of the Quick and the Dead. I was thinking that it could be a little bit of a parody of a cool movie with lots of starts in it. But oh no, I was really in for an very big disappointment.<br /><br />To put it simply the movie sucks. I'm a big fan of gore movies but this one just gives you gore here and there but they are not that consistent.<br /><br />But I have to give them credit in creating gruesome characters which has given me a little bit of squirm.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of zombies, watch this. If you're not...better look for other rob zombie films. | negative |
I had seen Marion Davies in a couple of movies and really couldn't understand her appeal. She couldn't dance for peanuts, she didn't attempt to sing and as for her acting - she seemed in a trance. But I hadn't seen her silent comedies and this film is wonderful. Rather than kidding her own image, as has been suggested here, to me it seems a satire on Gloria Swanson, who did start off in slapstick comedies, went on to highly emotional women's pictures and did end up marrying a Count. Marion, a top mimic, also did a funny rabbit imitation whenever she wanted to be seen as grand, that was Gloria Swanson spot on!!!<br /><br />Colonel Pepper (Dell Henderson) has motored all the way from Georgia to Hollywood, determined to prove that his daughter, Peggy, (Marion Davies) will be the greatest star ever. Their hope dwindles and they are down to their last 40 cents when they meet Billy Boone (William Haines) who works at the slapstick studios and promises to get Peggy a job. Peggy thinks she is going to be a great dramatic actress but the studio think she is a fantastic comic. They convince her to make the film and at the preview she is a great success. Charlie Chaplin asks for her autograph but she doesn't recognise him and treats him pretty rudely. "Who was that short little guy" - when she finds out she faints!!! Peggy and Billy get a call from High Art Studio but only Peggy is wanted and suddenly she is on her way. There is a funny scene where she sees a star she doesn't think much of - it's Marion Davies!!!<br /><br />She finally gets a chance of being a dramatic actress - but she can't cry!!! It is a hilarious scene as the director tries everything to get her to cry and when he succeeds, she can't stop!!! Her new leading man, Andre (Paul Ralli) convinces her to forget her comedy past and become elite and sophisticated - she even adopts a new name - Patricia Pepoire!!! She also seems to have forgotten Billy and her dad - she has developed a "STAR" personality!!! When the slapstick studio picks the same location as "Patricia's" movie, Billy is thrilled to see her but quite unprepared for her snobby attitude. When she calls him a cheap clown he realises that she is not the girl he once knew. <br /><br />After a studio luncheon ( a magnificent panning shot of some of the greatest stars of the day) "Patricia" gets a call from the Boss. It seems her films are a flop and no theatres want to book them - the public are tired of her mannerisms and want the old Peggy back. She and Andre decide to get married, she dreams of being a Countess (even though Billy says that Andre used to serve him spaghetti in a little cafe downtown and is no more a Count than he is). On her wedding day, Billy visits and after a hilarious custard pie fight she realises that Billy is the one for her.<br /><br />It was amazing to see all the guest stars - John Gilbert is seen going through the MGM gates, Lew Cody is talking to Elinor Glynn, who not only wrote "It" but several racy romances that were made into MGM movies. William Haines, another actor whose movies I had always wanted to see, was great - especially in the cafeteria scene , he had wonderful comic timing. Harry Gribbon was hilarious as the comedy director - there were so many hilarious scenes in this film and Marion was at the top of them all - I'm giving this film 10 out of 10.<br /><br />Highly, Highly Recommended. | positive |
this movie is a pile of rubbish , and to try and base it the first is just a farce , the main thing that let it down for me was the usage of the one liners out of the first one , which once said by classic actors such as Sam Elliot can not be reproduced in any way , i mean when Dalton phones wade in the 1st , and he ends the call with stay cool that was great , but when the chump rings the DEA agent back home and he ends the call with stay cool it doesn't have the same ring now really does it , there are other ones but I cant be bothered to post em up , but I hope u get my drift ,they should of named this roadhouse wannabe .......... | negative |
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz | negative |
If you enjoy the subtle (yes, I said subtle) actions and reactions of John Candy, you can't help but like this film (pronounced "fillum" by Salvatore DiPasquale). The unobservant (and uninformed) watcher always saw Candy as a broad actor - a big buffoon. And sometimes he was (see "Stripes" and "Splash"). But, when given the opportunity, he could really be razor-sharp and quite subtle. It's too bad he was cast in so many roles that only showed his broad side, because we'll never get to see more of the other. Oh, yeah, the movie. One can watch "Going Berserk" over and over (I know I have) with the frequency of "Caddyshack." It's just that good. The plot, although a little convoluted, is actually fairly deep for a farce of this kind. It allows Candy and the always under-rated Joe Flaherty and Eugene Levy to bounce off of Candy...and they bounce HARD. Definitely worth a glance for anyone who enjoyed SCTV or Candy's other work. | positive |
I've seen this film more than once now, and there's always someone complaining about the "obvious construction" of the plot afterwards. But then - this is part of Petzold's game: he plays along with the rules of genre.<br /><br />It's very nice, how the highly improbable story of how the two girls (Timoteo/Hummer) meet, is again mirrored in another, even more improbable story, that the girls make up for a casting. This film is a journey between fact and fiction, it's more about potentials, things that might have happened in the past or might be happening in the future, than it is about actual ongoings. It's a reverie, sorts of - so apt enough there are a lot of motives, Freud might have found interesting for his dream analysis, like all the "doppelganger"-constellations. <br /><br />Also, I think, "Gespenster" might be interesting to be watched in comparison to current Asian cinema of the uncanny: Petzold's everyday urban architecture also feels haunted in an unobtrusive, strangely familiar way. This film is not about the obvious. To describe it as the story of two girls who meet and eventually become friends and lovers, or as the story of an orphaned mother, who searches Europe for her lost daughter, clearly doesn't say much about the nature of "Gespenster" at all. | positive |
I think this is a pretty good movie, but one thing makes it VERY interesting to me. It is blatantly obvious once you look out for it: the main characters in this movie are the inspiration for the bullies on The Simpsons. Layne is Jimbo, John is Kearney, and Tony is Dolph. There is even an episode of The Simpsons where Jimbo uses the line "I poked her with a stick."<br /><br />The Jimbo-Layne connection is the most obvious with the knit hat and long hair and the voice. Kearney has the shaved head, unlike John, but is the big, dumb one. The Tony-Dolph connection is pretty obvious with the long, parted haircut and even the second-tier status. | positive |
Remember the good ol' animated batman show from the 90's? The one that people praised? The one that people of all ages could all appreciate? The one that showed batman as a real detective instead of the Hulk in a bat suit? The one that had villains you could relate to? The one that had villains with real motives?<br /><br />Well clearly, Warner Bros. doesn't. Hence this dreck.<br /><br />Honestly, do these people know anything about batman? Have they even looked at a batman comic before? Do they know Batman's meant to be a 'detective'? Putting together 2 clues does not make you a detective! That makes you a slightly intelligent monkey!<br /><br />This is the basic layout for an episode:<br /><br />Penguin steals something. 'Opening credits'. Batman finds dead giveaway of where he is. Batman goes there and get's into trouble. Commercial. Batman finds obvious/ stupid way out of it. Penguin escapes. Penguin does something obvious again. Batman follows. They do kung-fu (by the way everyone, and i mean EVERYONE know's kung-fu for some reason). Batman punch's penguin. he get's knocked out. goes to arkham. (Note: it's usually a different villain every episode)<br /><br />Well as you may have noticed from that, Batman's not a great detective. "Joker left this piece of cotton candy on the ground, maybe he's at the old amusement park"! Yeah maybe, he was there the last 6 times.<br /><br />And I've already mentioned this but, EVERYONE KNOWS KUNG-FU! EVEN PENGUIN! what where they thinking? (probably because it's from the people who made that Jackie Chan animated series)<br /><br />What's really upsetting is that the show is just action. No smarts. None. If batman needs think, he'll use technology, then do some kung-fu.<br /><br />But hey, let's not forget the villains. Afterall, what would batman be without his rogues gallery?<br /><br />Well first off, I gotta say, kudos for originality. I don't think other batman media would have envisioned joker and a dread-locked monkey man, riddler like an emo, and poison ivy as a minor (which is kind of confusing when you think about, isn't her sexuality meant to be her main strength?)<br /><br />What's even more crap however is that, every character is now a 2-Dimensional, stereotypical crook.<br /><br />E.G.<br /><br />Killer Croc wants to flood Gotham for no reason.<br /><br />Man-Bat is a power hungry mad scientist who is obsessed with bats for some unexplained reason.<br /><br />Penguin just wants to steal everything. For no reason.<br /><br />noticing a pattern here?<br /><br />But the most insulting has got to be Mr Freeze.<br /><br />Do you remember the Emmy award winning 'Heart of Ice' episode from Batman: The Animated Series? The one that gave Mr Freeze motives for his crimes? The episode that was so good that it was used in the comics over his original back story (mad scientist)? The one that made him a victim, with a goal? Hell, even Batman & Robin acknowledged that, using that as Mr Freezes origin in that P.O.S. movie.<br /><br />Well this series says "F#ck that" and makes Mr Freeze a jewelry robber before his accident, with only wealth in his mind, then gets frozen and gives him the power to make things cold. He then continues to steal jewels for no reason, while saying sh!t lines like "Have an ice day".<br /><br />Maybe they did watch Batman &Robin after all.<br /><br />But hey, look on the bright side. This series makes you feel nothing for the villains so that means that you're a good person. Good for you. | negative |
I knew it would be a bad movie when I rented it but I hoped for a good bad movie. Oh well, had fun making fun of the endless sand trudging, eating camel dung (well, actually eggplant) and weird grimacing acting from I think it was about five actors. The DVD needs a director's commentary so that I can find out what he was thinking...or if he was at all. I can't believe they actually went to England, Austrialia and wherever to film this...could have been done ANYWHERE. Would have been better if they had managed to get her naked. The best line of the movie? "He waiting for his upgrades." "Yup, still waiting". Now that WAS FUNNY! If anyone had more than 3 pages of dialog (beyond the narrator....SHUT UP ALREADY) then I'll watch it again. | negative |
Madonna gets into action, again and she fails again! Who's That Girl was released just one year after the huge flop of Shangai Surprise and two after the successful cult movie Desperately seeking Susan. She chose to act in it to forget the flop of the previous movie, not suspecting that this latter could be a flop, too. The movie received a bad acceptance by American critic and audience, while in Europe it was a success. Madonna states that "Some people don't want that she's successful both as a pop star and a movie-star". The soundtrack album, in which she sings four tracks sells well and the title-track single was agreat hit all over the world, as like as the World Tour. The truth isthat Madonna failed as an actress 'cause the script was quite weak. Butit's not so bad, especially for those who like the 80's: it's such a ramshackle, trash, colorful and joyful action movie ! At the end, it's very funny to watch it. | positive |
I have seen The Perfect Son about three times. I fail to see how this film is a gay film, I am not even gay, but I don't see it as a gay film. It is a film with a gay character, I can't see why every film with a gay character should be strictly a film about being gay. I find the film to be sympathetic to the study of death, the death of someone who is your kin. I think Theo turns his life around fairly quickly after rehab because he wants to and watching his brother dying in front of him makes him reassess his life. I found the dialog in the scene when Theo tells Ryan he is going to be a father to be very moving, Ryan states that he doesn't want to know about the things he is never going to see or share with anyone. Isn't that horrific and sad? I highly recommend the film. | positive |
Zane and Beringer will keep you on the edge of your seats. I don't typically go for military/war movies, but this was worth my time.<br /><br />It was serious, but it was also humorous. Beringer's character proved to be heroic and honest. No matter what, you know that he's got your back.<br /><br />Zane's character developed throughout the film. He wasn't just a suit, he definitely proved that he could be a hero and handle a gun.<br /><br />The ending through me a little though. It didn't really go with the action throughout the film, but I'm glad that I saw it, nonetheless.<br /><br />It's worth checking out. | positive |
I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.<br /><br />I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.<br /><br />Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.<br /><br />Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.<br /><br />If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.<br /><br />As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film. | negative |
I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this "soft horror" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke. | negative |
The story: On the island Texel, photographer Bob, who makes a photo shoot for a magazine, meets the mysterious Kathleen. Her free spirit and lust for life intrigues Bob, who has suffered a very traumatic experience shortly before. Her life is not so simple as it seems, however. Through Kathleen, Bob gets entangled in a dangerous network. Will Kathleen be able to win his trust?<br /><br />Review: The dialogue in this movie is very natural and the story unfolds nicely although it stays a bit on the surface and it would have been nice if the character's 'psychology' would have been worked out a little more. Why do these people do the things they do? What motivates their choices? This is what gives a movie depth and something to think about in my view. The story never reaches an emotional climax, even though the characters go through enough to justify that. So you don't get to know the characters on that deeper level. The actors deliver good work and play in a very natural and 'believable' way, but I think it would have suited the movie better if Kathleen had been played by a younger actress, as this character's naiveness doesn't quite work for a grown-up woman. Camera-work is nice, and there are some great shots of the nature on the island. I give the movie a 7/10. | positive |
I doubt much of this film is based on a true story. At the beginning it says based on a true story, sort of. I bet the only truth to it was there was an ex-model turned bounty hunter possibly named Domino.<br /><br />Anyways, it begins with Domino talking to Lucy Liu, who works for the FBI. Domino is being interrogated about what she knows about a theft of 10 million dollars. Through flashbacks, we see Domino as a child, then as a model, and how she became interested in being a bounty hunter. She basically tells 2 other bounty hunters off, Ed and Choco. They let her join the group. She's tough, can use any kind of weapon, and will use her good looks if needed.<br /><br />They get involved with a scam that Clarmont, a bailsman, has going. Along the way, the group starts a reality TV show, and that's where Ian Zering and Brian Austin Green become involved. They are sort of like hosts and must have been really desperate to appear in this.<br /><br />I thought the story was entertaining and it had some laughs. The editing didn't bother me. There's also a lot of violence, mainly using guns, and blood. It could have been a little shorter.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Good enough to watch. | positive |
I watched this last night on Sundance. Altman must be the most hit or miss director of note ever. This show, despite its "star power" is utterly non-compelling, and its political insights--which I as a proud liberal in no way disagree with--are shallow and clunky, and seem ripped from the headlines of USA Today, despite the fact it's coming out of the mouth of someone as esteemed as Mario Cuomo. The drama, as such, is not very dramatic, and the comedy is not funny. The only points of interest, really, are seeing how New Yorkers live their lives, and the loyalty of a cast and crew to reassemble a show that keeps insisting has some cult following from 1988. Sometimes it seems like Altman's sole contribution to cinema has been the art of having all your actors talk at once, the effect of which is one feels depressingly like they're a stranger at a wedding. | negative |
Not the best of the WIP's, but not the worst either. I honestly feel guilty laughing at this film considering it had to be career lows for all involved. Yet the acting, dialogue, preposterous scenarios, and the ever present boom mic get to me everytime and certainly add to its bad movie charm. As much of a Linda Blair fan I am, top (or topless) honors go to Sybil Danning. Also, special kudos to Henry Silva, who's the only one in the cast who doesn't play his role too seriously. Viewing, the film now, though, makes me look at Stella Stevens character more closely. She plays the head officer, and I have to wonder if this where Hilary Clinton decided to adopt her current look and demeanor. After all, I'm sure she had to look no further than her husband's video collection to find this film. Not that I'm judging. I've seen it several times myself, and it all makes me wonder what would've happened if Mr. Clinton had been allowed to install a hot tub in the Oval Office. Hmmm. | negative |
The film shows relations of the dying mother, and the son, who is very attached to her, and definitely loves her. What does it show? It shows their living in very poor conditions. It shows how tenderly they "walk" (really he is bringing her). But what do we see further? After their promenade he walks alone at the same places, where they walked together. It is not possible. A person, who love and care about another dying one, would do everything to make the life of this one better. He would not have a free minute to ponder, to be alone with oneself, and if he finds a few minutes a month for that, he would run away from the places where he has usually to be. Another thing. The author devoted this film to Andrey Tarkovsky. We see he learned many Tarkovsky's visual effects. But in Sokurov's film they are only effects, they do not support any senses or mood. Someone has compared this film with "Mirror" ("Zerkalo"). There is nothing common except these visual effects. "Mirror" is a great film and this one is just poor imitation. | negative |
Batman Returns is more Gothic and somber than its predecessor, and I like it a lot. Also, the scenery is more darker, and the entire environment is saddening along with the soul-chilling music composed by the so-talented Danny Elfman.<br /><br />However, I didn't like the idea to make the Penguin a monster, unlike to the comic books, where he's human. Even if he looks like a monster, he shows well that he possesses a human dignity, and I felt very sorry for him when he saw the tombstones of his late parents. But still, he was a dangerous villain in fact, and he needed to be stopped.<br /><br />Michael Keaton made a "tour de force" with his return as the Dark Knight, and this time he's powerful as in the original Batman. It's not difficult to understand why he's called Batman in public sometimes...<br /><br />Also, Michelle Pfeiffer is so sexy and well-fitted in her role, and she gave a faithfully performance as the female villain/crimefighter dressed as a cat. Really, the actors did all a masterful work with Batman Returns, which made it a successful movie.<br /><br />If you liked Batman, watch its awesome sequel, cause it's very worthy for all the Dark Knight's hard-core lovers.<br /><br />Steve Baillargeon | positive |
This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag. <br /><br />My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me... <br /><br />There was a "poem" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball. | negative |
I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside. <br /><br />It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant. <br /><br />For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut. | positive |
Rita Hayworth is just stunning at times and, for me, the only reason to watch this silly film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are good with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty. | negative |
Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel. | negative |
**SPOILERS** Redicules slasher film that makes no sense at all with a killer running around dressed in a black robe and wearing what looks like a pull-over Peter Lorre rubber mask. Were told early in the movie, almost the very first scene, that young Beth Morgan was in rehab due to heavy drug use after her boyfriend was murdered in Tennyson Collage about a year ago.<br /><br />It's also brought out that FBI Agent Sacker's (Jeff Conaway), who's obsessed in catching the killer,daughter was also murdered in Tennyson around the same time. By the time the movie "Do You Wanna Know A Secret" is over it's never explained just what those two killings back in Connecticute has to do with the slaughter in Florida of some half dozen collage students a year later? other that the killer, at least in the murder of Beth's boyfriend, wore the same silly Halloween outfit. <br /><br />At spring break in the Sunshine State the six students spend their vacation at a beach house and before you know it they start getting knocked off one at a time. Starting with computer geek Brad Clyton, Chad Allen, the killing even spill over into town with a number of people who have nothing to do with the targeted student including the police chief Gavin, Jack McGee, getting sliced open. <br /><br />The masked killer saves Beth for last in this weird ceremony at a deserted church, in what looks like the Florida Everglades. He then finally reveals who his is and what he intentions are which make as much sense as the movie does, none. Trying to scare it's audience all the movie does is confuse and bewilder it with a number of not-too convincing slasher scenes. The most effective ones having the victim Oz Washington, Tom Jay Jones, survive at least three attempts on his life and ending up, together with Agent Sacker, the hero in the film. <br /><br />Oz also had a vicious cut on is foot from a large splinter of glass that almost cut it in half and crippled him but later he miraculously recovered, after getting arrested for a murder he didn't commit, in fact he had it out two more time with the killer with him not as much as having a slight limp in his walk! It also made no sense at all why Oz and Beth went on their own to tack down and catch the killer instead of calling the police, with a cellphone that Oz had, instead? <br /><br />Beth's boyfriend, who loses his head over her, in the movie Hank Ford, Joseph Lawrence, is also very unconvincing as well as the two girls at the beach house.They together with with Beth Oz end up being the killers victims and then somehow disappearing from sight! for a moment you didn't know if they were really killed at all or if it was some kind of hallucination on Oz's or the local police part. Until the off-the-wall final scene where they popped up in the church.<br /><br />We also get an insight on a previous relationship between Tina and Hank with her, drunk and acting obnoxious, trying to get it on with Hank as Beth walks in without Hank and Tina even noticing her. That seemed to have upset Beth even more then her boyfriend being murdered at the beginning of the movie! | negative |
This movie is great--especially if you enjoy visual arts. The scenery that the two daughters paint and photograph are beautiful. The story is also both funny and poignant at times.<br /><br />People who like European films and "art movies" will like this movie. This is truly an art movie--it actually has a lot of art in it. Go rent it.<br /><br /> | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.