review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Recherche is a good word to describe this movie.<br /><br />Let's say every movie has a selling point, a gimmick. Transformers' gimmick is the awesome effects as well as fan boys nostalgia. Sleepless in Seattle's gimmick is situational in their tag-line, "What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?" Many romance relies heavily on these gimmicks and some through draw of big names. Leap Years employs both by using the Irish folklore as the circumstance and featuring considerably famous names within the country.<br /><br />So now that the audience are in the cinema, besides all the usual elements in characters, conflict or consequences, crisis, resolve and denouement, they also look forward to stimulating dialog, more absorbing situations as a result of the leap years, interesting sub-plots and perhaps, to a certain extent, a good twist in the middle or towards the end of the story that favors the circumstances of the characters.<br /><br />This is what Jean Yeo is trying not to achieve. If they've tried to, their goal was apparently in the other court, at the other stadium, on the other end of the planet. She and her writer, Alain Layrac, utterly failed to provide stimulating dialog. Most of the lines were contrived. It seems that they have a bag filled with lines which she would like to use in her movie: "Okay, these are the lines and quotes which I've heard or read from either movies I've seen or books I've read before and they all sound good to me. If they sound good to me, they will sound good to the audience. Therefore, all i have to do is piece them all together. I am going to use all of them." The result is cathartic. I can't say that the lines were unnecessary and bears no relation to the story or in driving the plot on, but they seem to spring out of nowhere, catching you off guard with these quotable quotes.<br /><br />On a personal level, i know people who cite quotes based on most of the situations in our dialog, trying to make it meaningful to themselves while nodding along. I don't go out with them anymore because the urge to punch them is overwhelming.<br /><br />Secondly, the characters portrayed are silly and one-dimensional. With exception to the unnatural dialog which implies their motivation (necessary to drive the plot), there was no sense of conviction in them. I haven't an idea who they are. They are all simpletons spouting lines from the advice column of a female-oriented magazine.<br /><br />The gimmick in the leap years is not enough to drive the story on because the circumstances are too shallow. Then again, there are movies with less but fared better than this, aren't there. They made it up with my first and second point. Moreover, the sub-plots are inconsequential (not that it's a bad thing for movies) and thin (bad thing).<br /><br />Jean Yeo and the producers are trying to pass off the terrible plot with fancy locations and passable photography. This is because they probably understand that it is possible and easier to attain the approval from some viewers than the others with the good use of cinematography, soundtrack and filming location. These non-discerning viewers.<br /><br />It is not even the kind of movie that is so bad that it's good. It is just bad. Don't watch this. | negative |
All this talk about this being a bad movie is nonsense. As a matter of fact this is the best movie I've ever seen. It's an excellent story and the actors in the movie are some of the best. I would not give criticism to any of the actors. That movie is the best and it will always stay that way. | positive |
This movie is truly worth seeing - Robin Tunney excels and Henry Thomas proves that he's one of those rarities, the child 'actor' who grows up to become a real actor. The characters are perfectly drawn, and in the wrong hands because of their depth, they could have been unconvincing - but all the actors are simply astounding. The cast of this movie has to rank up there with that of "Girl, Interrupted" (both movies coincidentally star the brilliant Clea Duvall). The score and music selections fit perfectly, and there is plenty of action to prevent the movie becoming just a character study. If you want the story, you won't find it in this review, but I will say that the climax will haunt you for a long time. | positive |
This sleek, sexy movie is a must-see. Only upon multiple viewings can one truly understand the uniqueness of this film. Personally I enjoy the narrator for his intelligent, no subject left untouched, style of narration. The introduction grips you right away, and holds you at the edge of your seat throughout the film. He provides wonderful insight into the world of the trainables and allows the audience to really 'connect' with internal horror this film exhibits. The script itself holds the movie together wonderfully. Not only for kids, but the elderly alike will gain a higher understanding of the trainables and the modern grasp that they have on the sexual experience. Ahead of its time and groundbreaking in cinematography, it surely defines the word 'masterpiece'. | negative |
This is one of the worst Sandra Bullock movie since Speed 2 But not quite that bad. I really lost it with those out of the blue not so "special effect". Guys, If you're an insomniac go with your girl to see this movie. I give it three sleepies! | negative |
....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience. | negative |
Poor performances by Sinatra, Martin and Hyer. Grossly underdeveloped supporting characters. Annoying talky with no real plot. Ending leaves you flatter than a pancake, with more loose ends than you could tie up in four sequels (that is, if you even cared about these wooden characters). MacLaine is the only real asset. That penultimate sequence in which the "Chicago hood" searches for the Sinatra character is laughable. The music in that sequence also is poor. And in the final scene when Martin's character removes his hat for the woman he called a "pig," almost made me go outside and find a stone to throw through my television screen. | negative |
Following the World War II Japanese attack on U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor, "The Eastside Kids": Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny Connors), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), David Gorcey (as Peewee), Ernest Morrison (as Scruno), and Bobby Stone (as Skinny) want to serve their country. But, both the U.S. Army and Navy reject them as too young. Still wanting to "knock off about a million Japs", the "boys" attack an Asian clerk, who turns out to be Chinese. The unfortunate incident does, however, lead the gang to help uncover some really nasty Japanese and German people.<br /><br />If "too young" is defined as "under twenty-one", only Mr. Jordan and Mr. Stone would be rejected for military service. But, it's possible recruiters were turned off by the office manners displayed by Mr. Gorcey and Mr. Hall. "Let's Get Tough!" was made during what the script accurately describes as "open season on Japs" - for this and other reasons, it hasn't aged well. It's a wasted effort, but the regulars performs ably, with Tom Brown moving the storyline along, as Jordan's spy brother.<br /><br />*** Let's Get Tough! (5/29/42) Wallace Fox ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Tom Brown | negative |
I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital. <br /><br />I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew. <br /><br />It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.<br /><br />I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action. | negative |
It is an interesting fact that metaphysics by Platon and Aristoteles, formal logic and abstract ontology form about those sciences that most people are not interested in. But then, around one thousand years after Aristoteles, the computer began to usurp the human thinking, and the humans who were refusing to reflect questions of being other than biological, physical and chemical ones, suddenly felt paralyzed because they could not cope with the consequences that this computers would bring "over night". R.W. Fassbinder's "Welt Am Draht", together with Tarkovsky's "Solaris" and Godard's "Alphaville", is probably the first movie who took the philosophical questions of emerging computer science as a basis of a story to be told in a movie. The confusing questions about identities and realities are cleverly built into different interwoven criminal stories which the audience really tries to follow because it is interested to solve the cases. Fassbinder was a master to sell highly abstracts contents to his public by embedding theoretical knowledge into practical, appetizing forms. The basis problem to understand is that an identity defines a reality, but on the other side, a reality also requires identity in order to be perceived. The idea of a person with multiple identities is known to us solely from the standpoint of psychiatry. However, logically spoken, the only reason why we have just one identity, is the fact that our logic has only two values (right and false). Now take a logic with just one more value, i.e. with three: Then, as you can easily see, you have already three identities. What happens now, when, let us say, Dr. Stiller gets killed? Then, it is quite possible that only one of three identities is abolished and the other two remain and are able to rescue the individual from death. Another question is, if a person with multiple identities actually feels these identities at once. The idea, however, to display such sets of identities in a up-down or down-up way as shown in the scene with the elevator in the hotel, is misleading, since identities and hence realities are not structured in Hierarchical, but in a Heterarchical way. Strictly speaking, there is no "artificial identity" either, since each identity is defined over two objects who share all of their features with one another. Therefore, the idea of assuming that every individual has just one single identity is nothing but a consequence of ancient two-valued logic either (a second identity would imply that a person, at the same time, exists and not-exists). But now look around and see that one and the same object (which is by definition self-identical) is perceived by every subject in its own way. If therefore every subject sees an object differently, why should it no be possible for the single individual to open the borders of his two-valued individuality-corset, with the effect that different persons can exchange their different Individualities? Fassbinder would five years later pick up this topic in his masterpiece "Despair. A trip into the light". | positive |
What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??<br /><br />I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.<br /><br />If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out.... | negative |
- I had planned to write something explaining what I didn't like about this movie, but this is going to be more difficult than I thought. Honestly, I can't remember much about it. I watched it just three days ago and it's made almost no impression on me. That's usually the sign of a real stinker. About the only thing I remember was being incredibly bored by most of it. The novelty of having a Humphrey Bogart look-a-like as the detective wore off real quick. It would be different if he could act, but he's a one-note entertainer. The kill scenes were amateurishly handled and there was no suspense leading up to them. If you can't spot the killer five minutes into the movie, you need to see more Euro horror. The casting is a dead giveaway to the killer's identity. | negative |
I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).<br /><br />I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters. | negative |
Conventional wisdom is that a sequel is seldom as good as the original movie. There are occasional exceptions, but this is NOT one of them. Disney should have quit while they were ahead. This was a real disappointment after a reasonably entertaining 101 Dalmatians. | negative |
This is a brilliant political satire. No wonder why it was largely ignored in the U.S.: it exposes our murderous foreign policy for what it really is.<br /><br />Another good film from this era, Rendition, was also totally dismissed simply because it showed, accurately, that the U.S. is a war machine bent on torturing, murdering, and maiming civilians in its quest for total world domination.<br /><br />A clever plot, good acting, some big stars (John Cusack, Ben Kingsley, Marisa Tomei anyone?) and some scenes of hilarity should have made this movie a hit. Unfortunately, Americans don't like to hear the truth about themselves, especially when they are complicit in mass murder. | positive |
I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary
but not intentionally.<br /><br />Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.<br /><br />Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel
or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney
thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else
avoid like arsenic. | negative |
Ponyo, written and directed by Hayao Miyazaki, is a little tale that speaks of respect for the ocean, respect for humans young and old, and respect for cultural differences. It is a new tale of a little goldfish wishing to be a girl, rather than a retelling of Disney's Little Mermaid. Miyazaki has animated by hand, a whimsical, magical film for the young and the young-at- heart. The film begins with a slow undulating blue-green palette of sea anemones, jellyfish, and scores of little fanciful goldfish with childlike faces. There isn't any need for narrative, the motion of the creatures and the music of Jo Hisaiahi tell the beginning. Released last summer in Japan, Ponyo won the Japanese Academy's award for Best Animation Film and Best Score (Jezebel.com). The fanciful little goldfish, Brunhild, leaves her ocean home on a jellyfish. Upon reaching the surface she is caught up in a fishing net full of other fish, garbage, and sludge. She is propelled into a jar, which is rolled to shore where five-year-old Sosuke (voice by Frankie Jonas) retrieves it. He cuts his hand when breaking the jar open to free the little goldfish. Brunhild tastes his blood, which heals Sosuke's cut, and puts in motion her transformation to a human, at the same time throwing nature out of balance. Sosuke puts the little goldfish in a green pail and names her Ponyo (Noah Cyrus), meaning soft and jelly like. Sosuke's mother, Lisa (Tina Fey), lets him take Ponyo to school, which is right next door to the nursing home where she works. Lisa's crazy driving down the picturesque winding road, past a dry dock, through the bustling fishing town, and up a tree-lined road to the nursing home is representative of Miyazaki's wonderful sequence of action and illustrates perfectly a parent's hectic morning. Miyazaki has created another strong, independent, female character in Lisa. Making her a loving, sensible, modern mother both to Sosuke and Ponyo. Lisa's telephone conversation with the not-coming-home-again husband, Kiochi (Matt Damon) because the ship he captains must make another run, is a typical wife's reaction. Later that evening Sosuke intercedes using a signal lamp to speak to his father as the ship passes the cliff their house sits on. Lisa refuses to acknowledge Kiochi's apology and jumps up and signals "Bug-off, Bug-off, Bug-off," it is a hilarious scene. But, when Sosuke takes the signal lamp and tells his dad "Good Luck, Love You," Lisa hugs him and tells him he has a good heart, it is a very poignant scene.<br /><br />My personal favorites are Miyazaki's elderly, granny-type women in wheelchairs at the nursing home, Yochi (Betty White), Noriko (Cloris Leachman) and Toki (Lily Tomlin). Their interchange over Sosuke's little goldfish is wonderful and reminiscent of the bickering between the Witch of the Waste (Lauren Bacall) and Sophie (Jean Simmons) as they trudge up a long flight of stairs in Howl's Moving Castle. Ponyo's magical sea-god father, Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) resembling the wizard Howl arrives to take Ponyo back to her ocean home. Fujimoto uses one of his elixirs to try and put nature back in balance, but magical little Ponyo escapes again upsetting more elixir in the process, and causing a tsunami. Running on the backs of giant dolphins to get to Sosuke, this redheaded, little girl reminds the audience of the stubborn, adventurous little Mei in My Neighbor Totoro. Ponyo is just as adventurous and curious as Mei. When Fujimoto realizes what Ponyo has done he calls for Gran Mamare (Kate Blanchett), the Goddess of the ocean, to help with the situation. This wise, calming Goddess arrives in a blue flowing garment that never ends. She has a private talk with Lisa discussing the future of the young children, which helps the audience understand Sosuke and Ponyo's relationship is not that of lovers, but of brother and sister. The life-goes-on quiet simple ending is typical of Miyazaki films leaving the audience full of hope. | positive |
How do these guys keep going? They're about 50 years old each, and act as if they're only 30. They play 3 hours of music at every concert, and barely break a sweat. This DVD is their first concert in Rio, Brazil. Although the people don't speak English, they try to memorize the words to the most famous Rush songs, and try to sing a foreign language at the concert with their best friends.<br /><br />From Tom Sawyer to The Spirit of Radio, this concert DVD will keep you in the chair not wanting to pause or move away from the classics that you've listened to when you were young. This is their 30th reunion tour (started in 1974). I went to their Scranton PA concert, and this was just as good, although in PA they didn't play Freewill, so I was upset.<br /><br />They have Freewill, they have The Trees, they have YYZ, The Pass, Driven, Dreamline, Red Sector A, Limelight, Roll the Bones, 2112, and much more. 10 out of 10, because nothing else compares. If you never go to a Rush concert, then at least buy this DVD. | positive |
I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three out of 10. | negative |
Is it just me, or is this an AWFUL film? I'm going with it's an AWFUL film...<br /><br />Knowing full well that it's a guy flick (usually defined as full of car chases, crashes, gunfights, explosions, etc.), I still expect some small degree of credibility. If I can't somehow believe in the premise, the film WILL NOT WORK. Thus, we come to the problem with "Assault on Precinct 13."<br /><br />Not one for spoilers, I never report details of the plot. However, I will make an exception here, because the plot is SO inane. Bad guy is jailed in Precinct 13. Bad guy's buddies want to bust him out. Surprise. The bad guys' buddies are actually corrupt cops. Brooding, troubled, but heroic young cop saves the day while romancing the girl. UGH. Yes, it really is THAT simple, and that dumb.<br /><br />"Assault on Precinct 13" takes place in Detroit. Not a bad setting for crime and corruption (I spent 3 months there in late 2004, so I know what I'm talking about). Even so, it's outrageously violent and insulting to the police and the citizens of Detroit. I have spent a lot of time in downtown Detroit, but I cannot imagine how the final chase wound up in the downtown Detroit forest. I must have missed it...<br /><br />There are NO refunds for watching bad movies. Save your money. There were too many good films in 2005 to waste even $3.00 at Blockbuster on this one.<br /><br />FINAL RATING: 1<br /><br />(Only because I have seen worse films.) | negative |
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste. | negative |
"In Love and War" is a simple feel-good TV-film, and should be viewed as such.<br /><br />(Possible spoiler)<br /><br />It is the story of a WWII British soldier, Newby, captured with his commando by the Italians and imprisoned in a former orphanage. As the Italians surrender to the Allies, the commando is freed, and attempts to flee. However, the Germans arrive and the commando is captured again. Only Newby, injured, remains at large. The rest of the film recounts how he is hidden and protected by the Partisans, and his survival.<br /><br />(End of spoiler)<br /><br />Based on a true story, "In Love and War" is a refreshingly straightforward film. Half comedy, half romance, the story is simple and unambiguous. The 'atmosfera' is warm and sunny, and the various stereotypes (the desperately unorganized or romantic Italians, the serious stern-looking Germans and the phlegmatic and pragmatic British), although unoriginal, are still humorous. Nicola Piovani's musical score also adds to the Mediterranean flavour.<br /><br />Although it is far from being a "Tea With Mussolini" or a "La Vita E Bella", "In Love and War" is a sweet simple film that will put a smile, and maybe even a little tan, on your face. | positive |
This movie is rich with action and gore. The story line is strong enough to support the action sequences. The English version needs a tad bit of help in the dubbing department but it was still enjoyable. This movie ranks among my personal favorites next to "Hard Boiled" ... | positive |
Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in "The Facts of Life" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..<br /><br />Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until "Mame."<br /><br />Trying to see Lucille Ball in "Mame" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in "Mame," you can't really see Lucille Ball in "Mame". Which is a blessing.<br /><br />That's about the nicest thing I can say about "Mame," the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called "Auntie Mame"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. "It's Today," "Open a New Window," and "We Need a Little Christmas" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad "If He Walked Into My Life Today" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)<br /><br />If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical "Mame," notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.<br /><br />The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast. <br /><br />Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it. | negative |
I watched Lion king more times that all my friends put togther. Having a baby sister.. you know how it is. By now i memorized both the plot and the lines. After Lion king 2 came out i was like ok well let me see... the second one was significantly weaker... then i saw an ad for lion king 1 and 1/2... I was like ok there we go again. After watching the 1 1/2 i was like wow. All my expectations (for repetitevness) were broken. A truly lovely and original plot keeps you glued to your seat for the entire time. I have noticed that the cartoon was filled with so many comical moments that ROFlmao will apply here 100%.<br /><br />I definetly recommend seeing the cartoon. | positive |
This movie changed the art of film making, telling a complex story in a powerful new way. The film mixes brutal realism with fantasy, intercutting a modern war with strange scenes full of technicolour smoke. The film uses music not as a score laid in later, but as a practical part of the scene playing from speakers, radios etc. Coppola uses a classic piece of literature as inspiration, taking scenes and characters, and putting them into entirely different surroundings. That is a tricky and brave thing to do. Then he takes a superstar, Brando, pays him a fortune, and films him so that you can barely see his face. The pure guts that such a move requires is astounding, and it works beautifully. This movie belongs in the top ten. | positive |
In the opening sequence of "Where's Poppa?", George Segal rises from his bed one morning, shaves, showers, puts on a gorilla suit and goes into his mother's bedroom, we realize later, to give her a massive heart attack that will kill her and get her out of his life forever. This is about the level of humor one can expect from most of this picture: insanity, blended with what might be taken as morbid daring.<br /><br />Segal plays a New York attorney who lives with his supposedly senile mother (Ruth Gordon), whose life is further complicated when, while hiring a nurse to care for the old bag, meets the girl of his dreams, the pleasantly prim Trish Van Devere, decked out like Florence Nightingale. His dilemma: how to integrate the lovely nurse into his and his pesky mother's life.<br /><br />Segal's performance is about the only thing holding the picture together. His frustrations, his reactions, his comic timing is almost peerless (whatever happened to that guy?); where the film fails is in other areas. Ruth Gordon's characterization is dreadful as the mother. At the beginning, you can't figure out if her character is senile or just being deliberately vague to keep her son from moving out. By the end, it's clear she's just nuts. When Segal brings Van Devere home to meet her, Gordon's eyebrows furrow and she gets a mean, sinister look. She wants the intruder in her son's life removed; she's calculating. This is not the mode of a senile person. You're not getting a consistent performance throughout the picture, which is probably the director's (Carl Reiner) fault as much as Gordon's. Ruth Gordon's old lady in "Rosemary Baby" is much more successful because with the kind of ingratiating, cloying person that Ruth Gordon generally plays, the audience responds to her as annoying. But when Mia Farrow is too timid to fight back, Gordon becomes more cloying, her fangs dig deeper and deeper and we're frightened for Farrow; this kind of imposition is genuinely terrifying. Here, we're being asked to laugh at what we'd normally find annoying, and if Gordon played it as helplessly nutty all the way, we might. But she's selfish and mean as well, and it dampens what little humor there is.<br /><br />There are a few good laughs, though. A courtroom scene with Barnard Hughes as a military officer and Rob Reiner as a counterculture punk is fairly hilarious, and Vincent Gardenia does a nice turn as a Lombardiesque football coach. There's also an inspired bit where Segal's brother (Ron Liebman), having been stripped naked by muggers on his way to Segal's place, asks him for something for to wear home- and he gives him the gorilla suit.<br /><br />But of a lot of the script is poorly conceived and simply doesn't make sense. Why is a New York lawyer with his own practice even living at home in the first place? Why does Segal, if his mother is senile, try to reason with her logically: "If you spoil this for me, I'll punch your f---ing heart out." Why does Liebman keep cutting through the park if he knows he's going to get mugged? Why does he take a taxi after leaving Segal's with gorilla suit? Why wasn't he taking taxis all along? A funnier bit would have been Liebman, as the gorilla, terrorizing the muggers. Why does Van Devere keep coming back- after her first husband was a kook, why does she want to get involved with this bunch? I suppose if I put this to Carl Reiner, he'd say, 'These are crazy people, they don't have to make sense.' Which is a convenient way to excuse a lousy script that's full of holes. The characters' moment-to-moment behavior may not have to make sense, but their motivations do, and that's where "Where's Poppa?" falls apart; the situations are created just to have the gag, and the gags are mostly one-shots, they don't build to anything.<br /><br />Carl Reiner is the most guilty in this whole fiasco. How he has acquired this vaunted reputation as a pillar of comedy puzzles me; basically, his career has been to hold a microphone in front of Sid Caesar and Mel Brooks while they talk in funny voices. His son Rob has ten times the skill and intelligence as a director. In show-biz terms, Reiner pushes buttons; a monkey could do his job. And that is most apparent in his framing of the action. Why is all of New York shot in tight and in close-ups, but the scenes in the country are all distant and panoramic? That's the mentality of Carl Reiner's direction, claustrophobic for the city, spatial for the country. In the final lunatic scene at the old folks home, the camera is so far off, you can't even make out what's going on. The abrupt ending suggests a resolution that Segal could have easily arrived at ninety minutes ago; it also suggests Reiner couldn't figure out how to end the picture. So he just cut it, as another example of "craziness". Reiner seems to think dumbness equals craziness, and craziness without logic is always funny. It isn't, and the creators of "Where's Poppa" are as demented as Ruth Gordon putting Pepsi in her Fruit Loops. | negative |
Power Rangers, the completely awful kid's show from the 1990s still continues to disturb young children with it's complete cheesiness, and awful settings.<br /><br />This show was not entertainment, it was an excuse to teach children violence in showing kids how to fight one another in order to solve their differences.<br /><br />The toys were further demonstration in how to promote a violent television show and such.<br /><br />I have never been able to figure out what the purpose of this completely ridiculous show ever was.<br /><br />As such, it remains one of the worst kids shows ever made. | negative |
Okay.. this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but I had heard lots of good things about it and I was sorely disappointed. I could see where the film makers were coming from and that they were trying to express the fact that the two sides in this battle weren't a whole lot different from one another, that the individuals were getting lost in the fighting, etc, etc. (well, that's my presumption, anyway =^_^=)<br /><br />At any rate.. the movie kind of bored me. I've watched a lot of really long movies, but this one just seemed to drag on and on and on.. basically because I just couldn't bring myself to care for any of the characters. I just kept thinking.. who cares??? I also found the acting to be rather dead pan and the dialogue strained. I understand that this was the 1800s and all, but most of the conversations just seemed rather unnatural. No one seemed to have any emotion throughout most of the film except during melodramatic events.<br /><br />The "romance" in the story didn't seem to be supported by anything other than "I'm a guy and you're a girl", which I don't consider much of a romance, and yet I felt I was being steered to the belief that these people were in love. Oh well.. I guess it's the whole "all this horror around us, we have each other to cling to" type thing, or whatever. I was also hoping for some sort of dynamic between the two best friends (who both initially seemed to have an interest in the girl) but that was just sort of dropped. Maybe avoiding a cliche love triangle. I don't know.<br /><br />Oh well.. Daniel Holt was about the only character I really truly liked. And Sue Lee was all right. I didn't exactly dislike Jake, but he seemed a bit too... spineless, I guess. Jack Bull I did not care for at all. And I'm pretty sure you're *supposed* to hate just about everyone else, with the exception of the poor normal people who just get mowed down left and right. It was pretty graphic and had that whole "the horrors of war" thing down, but I've seen plenty of other movies with the same theme, done better. (I enjoyed The Patriot a lot, for instance, even if it was a bit emotionally manipulative) But, as I've already stated, I'm a cynic. What can I say? :) | negative |
I have for years remembered a song "JUST A COUPLE IN A CASTLE" ("No. twenty moonbeam square, just a couple in castle in the air"). I couldn't find the song, but I remembered that it it had to do with cartoon bugs. I located a reference to the movie on the web. I had seen the movie when I was only 9 year old at the Ligonier PA theatre. I was pleased to find that it had Kenny Gardner the singer with Guy Lombaro (I am a Lombardo fan). And then to see that it was produced by the Fleisher Bros. who did another very good full lengh cartoon feature of "Gullivar's Travels" (also remembered fondly). Also the songs were associated with Hoagy Carmichael and Frank Loesser who are among the very best. No wonder I remembered the film, the song, and the colorful animation. As a full lengh musical this is a movie which should be remembered as a one of the best of the early full lengh musicals. Now that I remember it, the plot may not have been earth shaking, but was very well presented and makes for a easy to watch abd delightful movie. | positive |
I have loved this movie since I saw it in the theater in 1991. I was 12 then and Wil Wheaton was my favorite actor and adolescent crush. I am now 23 and I still love this movie. The best part about it is whoever I am dating loves it too because it is a total macho-guy movie! It is wrought with enough action and mayhem to keep men with the shortest attention spans glued to the screen. I only wish that it was available on DVD! | positive |
"A Bug's Life" is like a favorite candy bar -- it's chock-full of great little bits that add up to something really tasty.<br /><br />The story couldn't have been better; it's clever, has "heart" (emotion), and every character has a nice "arc" (a growth or change). By comparison, the only characters in "Toy Story" to have an "arc" are Buzz, who learns to love being a toy, and Woody, who overcomes his resentment of Buzz. There are tons of laughs and cute moments in "A Bug's Life". All of the actors turn in great voice work, and the animation, both the motion and detail, is superb.<br /><br />This serious movie buff doesn't throw around "10"s lightly, but this movie certainly deserves the "10" I gave it. | positive |
This story had the potential of a good film. The difficult choice of love versus money and the angst and regret of making the wrong one. However the movie was ruined by the horrible miscasting of Robert Redford as the villain who offers $1,000,000 to sleep with Demi Moore. Like Redford has to pay for it. Redford's boyish good looks and All American charm just don't cut it as an unlikeable, threatening, boor. Redford's acting skillls are insufficient to make his character menacing. I can see it now, $1,000,000 to sleep with Robert Redford. OK says the lady but you will have to give me some time to raise the money. Jack Nicholson would have been perfect as the sleazeball. | negative |
Even worse then the incredibly boring "the Exorcism of Emily Rose". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, "See I knew she was possessed", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost. | negative |
I served as a Corpsman at Parris Island in the late 60's, a little over 10 years after "The D. I." was shot. I was in some of the barracks where they filmed some of the indoor scenes. I knew a lot of Drill Instructors and a lot of recruits. I think the movie is as close as any movie to showing the life of a recruit and that of a Drill Instructor. Without a doubt, I think it is the best thing Jack Webb ever did. If you have been in the military, you need to see this movie. This was the way it was. It shows how important it is to take a bunch of raw recruits and turn them into men ready to defend our country. One feature I found fascinating is that most of the characters are played by real Marines, not actors. | positive |
The first time I watched it was when it came out (1994), and the last time I watched it was just before writing this review.. It still makes me laugh my brains out...after all these years,it dose not disappoint. Truly the smartest Bollywood comedy ever made. This is one Indian movie which deserves its place in the IMDb Top 250. Aamir Khan and Salman Khan in probably one of their best performances in comedic roles. The thing that makes this one a time less classic is its comic timing and wonderful editing...The jokes are refreshing and not cheap.. This is one film truly ahead of its time. If you haven't seen it yet GO WATCH IT NOW !!!!!!!!! | positive |
This was my first, and probably the last Angelopoulos movie. I was eager to get into it, as it featured Mastroianni, one of my favorite actors and was a film By Theo, of whom I've heard a lot. The opening was promising, a long shot over a jeep of soldiers across the Albanian-Greek border. OK! but that was all. Nothing left. The movie had big holes and I don't know which to mention first. The main plot of the story is revealed to the journalist by the old woman. during a long walk. It's like a 15 minutes monologue, killing the action and viewers patience, nothing happening on screen for 15 or even 20 minutes, apart this old lady telling a story. All that is presumed to be shown through action, was simply told to the camera by the old lady. In a moment, the equippe of TV was heading to the bar. They turn the corner and immediately the winter begins! Probably, shot in different days, continuity leaked. A lot of problems with the story-telling, it went from absurd to irrational never sticking to a style, making the viewer asking questions that never got answers. Poor Mastroianni, given a role which lacked integrity or charm. On the other hand, as many Greeks or Albanians or Balcan people would agree with, the movies showed lot of historic, ethnic, or politically incorrectness, just for the sake of making a movie about "humanity" as a red in another review. A lot more to say, but no time to lose on a poor movie, which was not movie at all, but lunacies of a person impressed on film and paid with state money. | negative |
I had really only been exposed to Olivier's dramatic performances, and those were mostly much later films than *Divorce*. In this film, he is disarmed of his pomp and overconfidence by sassy Merle Oberon, and plays the flustered divorce attorney with great charm. | positive |
and nothing else.<br /><br />One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two "Problem Child"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was "funnier".<br /><br />There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.<br /><br />John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.<br /><br />Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys. | negative |
I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.<br /><br />The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.<br /><br />This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.<br /><br />It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.<br /><br />A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ... | negative |
Even though the plot was very well detailed,and the story line was understandable the fact that Steven Seagals voice was dubbed with some one else's through out most of the movie was distressing as you were unsure who was talking . There were many parts where he would start to talk in his deep raspy voice and then the next some one else's voice was doing the talking for him. I don't know the reason however if he had difficulty with his voice during production of the movie I think they could have re shot the events that did not contain his own voice when he had recovered. I have rated this movie 3 out of 10 based on the quality of the film. When one pays for a movie whether or not its at the theater or on DVD this movie was not worth the admission price that was charged. I have been a long time follower of Steven Seagal and all his movies that he has done over the past years.To date I think this is one of the worst ones we have seen yet | negative |
The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it. | negative |
Treading Water is a very beautiful movie. I would put it straight under the wonderful short movie : Cosa bella from Fiona MacKenzie. It's not only about coming out but also about tolerance and acceptance in general. I am looking forward to seeing more of Laurel Himmel's work in the future. The actors, Angie Redman and Nina Landey are quite good. The main characters relationship could have been strenghtened a bit as we understand there is a very strong bond between them but maybe this could have been explained a bit. I am surprised that Angie Redman doesn't appear much in other movies. A great first step as a director for Laurel Himmel, I am sure there's more to see from her skills. | positive |
Not since J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5, has a television show captured the wonderful art of applying a story arc to a television show. This is easily the best thing on TV right now! The characters are likable and one can easily get attached to them and care for their well-being. The villians are the type you love to hate and leave you wondering what they're up to next. And Brian Hensen's puppet work is the most innovative out there. Kudos to Rockne S. O'Bannon for a job well done! | positive |
One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation" remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.' <br /><br />This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to "Easy Rider" and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.<br /><br />The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right? <br /><br />This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.<br /><br />I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): "She's a latent existentialist." Wow, far out, groovy. <br /><br />A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away. | negative |
If you value your life in any way, shape, or form, you will do yourself a courtesy and pass by this seemingly "interesting" movie on the DVD rack.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking, "I saw the preview and it looked GREAT!" However, buyer beware, I fell into the same trap. One of my friends expressed certain reluctance to watching this movie, but I forced her to sit it out. Oh, how I regret that decision.<br /><br />Like most horror movies, the movie starts out cheerfully in a sunny Mexican resort where two couples are lured to an ancient Mayan Ruin by a fellow resort-goer. Upon arrival, they are disturbed by the appearance of two jungle people who are all but oblivious to their greeting shouts. As if this isn't ominous enough, the tour group casts aside large plant growth and declares an unused path consumed by wildlife a perfect route to their destination. I guess it wouldn't be much of a movie if they utilized rational decision making and turned around just then, but, well, this wasn't much of a movie anyways.<br /><br />After some hiking, the sixsome (the resort goer brought a friend) stumble upon the ruins and at once their doubts are dispelled by its beauty and history. That is, until frantic tribal people emerge from the jungle armed with a vengeance for no reason in particular, shouting in an indecipherable language. Since when are brutal verbal assaults assuaged by calm, patronizing language - don't ask me - but nonetheless, the cast tries anyway, to no avail, obviously. Suddenly, the sixth trail member, Dimitri, is punctured with several arrowheads from the Mayans and all hell breaks loose. A gunshot finishes the job and the horrified travelers retreat quickly up the ruin.<br /><br />Now, if there was ever a plot to this movie, it ended here. The introduction took at most 20 minutes and it was unfortunately the best 20 minutes of the movie. On top of the ruins, the now fivesome realizes they are stranded by murderous locals and proceed to make countless good decisions, one of them being to use a withered rope to lower one of their members into the bowels of the ruin. Needless to say, the adventurer is seriously hurt and then trapped within the ruins and the two girlfriends are gravely injured trying to rescue him.<br /><br />The rest of the movie continues plotlessly, with no real horror, only only blood and gore, as displayed when one girl yanks a plant growing within her out, gushing torrents of blood and then again when somebody's legs are cut off, only to have the same plat from within the girl strangle him later.<br /><br />My only satisfactions in this movie were observing the very attractive Jonathon Tucker, playing Jeff McIntire, grow increasingly more frazzled and distressed and sitting long enough to ascertain that almost all of the cast dies a horrible, gruesome death. Their simulated pain seems an adequate compensation for the time suck that was this movie.<br /><br />Supposedly, the storyline goes that the ruin is an ancient house of of dangerous spirits with an evil, flesh eating plant to ward off and consume unlucky visitors. Unfortunately, I got no such warning from screaming bloodthirsty plants and the only evil thing relating to this movie that I am truly horrified by is the script writer. | negative |
This film was hilarious. It provided a somewhat comical view of the British club scene, which, if you really look at it, is a funny thing. The characters in this flick were so realistic to those of us who watched here at my place that it was like watching a movie about ourselves.<br /><br />There were a few pivotal scenes which really made this movie work: the getting ready scenes; the "Get me a real doctor" scene; the white background scene showing each character in a total state of being wrecked, ending with the infamous line "what was i saying?" and the comedown-sunup scenes. I have lived these moments myself and found myself laughing hysterically at my own ridiculous behaviour.<br /><br />I can't give this movie a 10 because it doesn't measure up to Groove, which I thought was out of this world, but it certainly has its moments. The mise-en-scene and the camera work is superb, the special effects are well worth mentioning, and the acting is fantastic.<br /><br />After waiting a long time to see this film, I am glad to say that I was not disappointed. I hope to see more from the writer/director in the future. | positive |
I loved this movie. The scenery was breathtaking, the plot had some nice twists and turns, and the characters were well rounded. On two fronts, however, "Rob Roy" scored far above average. First, I have rarely seen a "popular" film in which the quality of dialogue was so high. There were many verbal slashes and thrusts to accompany the brilliantly choreographed swordplay. I could give numerous examples, but why should I? Just watch the film. Second, this movie understood a principle rarely acknowledged any more. For a drama to succeed, it needs not only a hero, but a really believable villain. If you don't have one, there's not much joy in rooting for the good guys. And "Rob Roy" has not one, but three--the Earl of Montrose, his henchman Kilairn, and Archie. Not one-dimensional villains, either, but fully fleshed and very nasty. It takes a bit more patience than "Braveheart"--there's more dialogue, and the accents are a bit tough, but it's a much more clever and subtle piece. (As I said, I loved this movie!) | positive |
This is truly a kung fu classic. This film appears to have influenced martial arts films for decades. The Spanish guitar background music, the competing schools, the impossibly high leaps onto the edges of rooftops, catching thrown spears, cheating in tournaments, the secret training for an exotic karate technique, themes of patience and perseverance, and more were copied by many later films such as "The Karate Kid" (1984), "Hero" (2002), "Kill Bill Volume 2" (2004), and "Kung Fu Hustle" (2004).<br /><br />I feel lucky to have first seen this film in 1972, shortly after it was released, just before kung fu films became mainstream and before Bruce Lee became a household name. I saw it with two buddies of mine in a downtown San Diego theater frequented by sailors, and although the scenes of the glowing red hands and gouged eyeballs got some laughs, clearly the audience was getting into it, as was our little group. It was a very memorable movie for me. Decades later I could still recall several specific scenes, even after I had forgotten the film title. This film is extra special to me now because one of those two buddies with whom I first saw it (sailor Kenneth Lee Hines of the Kitty Hawk) has since passed away, so this film serves as a memento of that day together before we took judo and karate lessons in subsequent years.<br /><br />Relative to kung fu films, I'd rate this film as 10/10. But since I have to keep the larger film audience in mind, I'll more objectively rate it as 8/10, due to obvious technical flaws. I just recommend that neophyte viewers consider those technical flaws to be proof of its vintage nature and of its authenticity, and then merrily proceed to enjoy its testosterone-charged mayhem. | positive |
...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a "wetback" as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.<br /><br />If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying. | negative |
Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also. | negative |
There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.<br /><br />There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window. | negative |
The Vampire Bat is set in the small German village of Klineschloss where Gustave Schoen (Lionel Belmore) the Burgermeister is holding a meeting with Inspector Karl Brettschneider (Melvyn Douglas) from the local constabulary about all the recent murders, six victims have been discovered in as many weeks all drained of blood & bearing the same two puncture wounds on their necks. Brettschneider doesn't have a single clue but the superstitious elders of the village believe the deaths to be the work of a Vampire. Brettschneider isn't convinced but the scared villagers keep telling tales of seeing a large Bat, meanwhile the latest victim Martha Mueller (Rita Carlyle) has been found. Brettschneider comes under increasing pressure to solve the murders but can he really believe that a giant Vampire Bat is responsible & if it is how's he going to stop it?<br /><br />Directed by Frank R. Strayer The Vampire Bat was a cheapie from Majestic Pictures to cash in on the success of it's two stars Atwill & Wray & their success in the previous years Doctor X (1932) & is more of a murder mystery rather than a horror as the exploitative & enticing title may have lead you to believe & quite frankly it's rather dull. The script by Edward T. Lowe Jr. takes itself rather seriously & sets up the basic story that something is killing local villagers & that something could possibly be a Vampire, then for most of it's duration the film focuses on Brettschneider & his incompetent investigations which are, not to put too fine a point on it, boring. The Vampire Bat also has a bit of an identity crisis as it doesn't quite know what it wants to be, the title would suggest a horror film while the majority of it could easily be described as a thriller with the final few minutes descending into silly sci-fi. There is no Vampire Bat, the attempts to fool you are pathetic, all the character's are broad stereotypes & you can tell the villain of the piece straight away & as a whole there is nothing particularly exciting or entertaining about The Vampire Bat. I know it's old but that's not an excuse as cinema has moved on a lot since 1933 & a bland, flat, dull, boring & misleading film such as The Vampire Bat just doesn't cut it these days, just look at the original King Kong (1933) released the same year & how brilliantly that still holds up today. I didn't like it & I doubt many modern film-goers would either, it's as simple & straight forward as that.<br /><br />Director Strayer doesn't do anything special but this is a case in point where I can cut the film some slack because of it's age, as a whole it's pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. There isn't much in the way of atmosphere or scares although some of the sets which were already existing ones taken from The Old Dark House (1932) & Universal's European set on their back-lot are nice & add a certain ambiance to things.<br /><br />Technically The Vampire Bat can't compare to anything even remotely modern, for the age of it it's alright I suppose but again I draw your attention back to the original King Kong. Speaking of King Kong it's star Fay Wray has a role in this as does horror icon Lionel Atwill, I'll be kind & say the acting is OK.<br /><br />The Vampire Bat will I imagine fool a lot of people into thinking that it's a horror film about Vampire Bats when in fact it isn't, personally I thought the whole thing was a bit of a bore. It's short & it tells it's story reasonably enough but I must admit I'm not a fan. | negative |
Karen goes into a Japanese house as a substitute nurse to Emma, a strange woman who sleeps at day and wakes at night. Karen goes upstairs after hearing noises when she encounters a frightening ghost. She will learn the house's secrets.<br /><br />It is very scary! The scenes are shocking and frightening! The characters are good. The settings are creepy. I love the whole plot! The ending was shocking! I paused at a scene where the little boy meowed so loudly to the man finding his sister upstairs and I was shocked. This is the scariest movie I have watched. I did not see the Japanese version. I recommend this to horror fans. 10/10 and 5 stars! | positive |
This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get "Tales of Manhattan" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat. | negative |
If you're a film student, or were one, or are thinking of becoming one, the name Battleship Potemkin has or will have a resonance. Sergei Eistenstein, like other silent-film pioneers like Griffith (although Eisenstein's innovations are not as commonplace as Griffith's) and Murnau, has had such an impact on the history of cinema it's of course taken for granted. The reason I bring up the film student part is because at some point, whether you'd like it or not, your film professor 9 times out of 10 will show the "Odessa Stairs" sequence of this film. It's hard to say if it's even the 'best' part of the film's several sequences dealing with the (at the time current) times of the Russian revolution. But it does leave the most impact, and it can be seen in many films showcasing suspense, or just plain montage (The Untouchables' climax comes to mind).<br /><br />Montage, which was not just Eistenstein's knack but also his life's blood early in his career, is often misused in the present cinema, or if not misused then in an improper context for the story. Sometimes montage is used now as just another device to get from point A to point B. Montage was something else for Eisenstein; he was trying to communicate in the most direct way that he could the urgency, the passion(s), and the ultimate tragedies that were in the Russian people at the time and place. Even if one doesn't see all of Eisenstein's narrative or traditional 'story' ideas to have much grounding (Kubrick has said this), one can't deny the power of seeing the ships arriving at the harbor, the people on the stairs, and the soldiers coming at them every which way with guns. Some may find it hard to believe this was done in the 20's; it has that power like the Passion of Joan of Arc to over-pass its time and remain in importance if only in terms of technique and emotion.<br /><br />Of course, one could go on for books (which have been written hundreds of times over, not the least of which by Eisenstein himself). On the film in and of itself, Battleship Potemkin is really more like a dramatized newsreel than a specific story in a movie. The first segment is also one of the great sequences in film, as a mutiny is plotted against the Captain and other head-ups of a certain Ship. This is detailed almost in a manipulative way, but somehow extremely effective; montage is used here as well, but in spurts of energy that capture the eye. Other times Eisenstein is more content to just let the images speak for themselves, as the soldiers grow weary without food and water. He isn't one of those directors who will try to get all sides to the story; he is, of course, very much early 20th century Russian, but he is nothing else but honest with how he sees his themes and style, and that is what wins over in the end.<br /><br />Some may want to check it outside of film-school, as the 'Stairs' sequence is like one of those landmarks of severe tragedy on film, displaying the ugly side of revolution. Eisenstein may not be one of the more 'accessible' silent-film directors, but if montage, detail in the frame, non-actors, and Bolshevik themes are your cup of tea, it's truly one of the must sees of a lifetime. | positive |
I have seen Slaughter High several times over the years, and always found it was an enjoyable slasher flick with an odd sense of humor, but I never knew that it was filmed in the UK, and I never knew that the actor that plays Marty Rantzen (Simon Scuddamore) committed suicide after the film was released. I guess I did notice while watching it last night that the actors phrasing seems rather odd for Americans, and a few of them aren't very good at hiding their English accents.<br /><br />All that aside though, this is the tale of the class nerd, Marty, who is the butt of jokes from his classmates, and on one particular day, April Fools Day, he's lured into the girl's locker room by one Caroline Munro (yes, playing a teenager) and humiliated big time on film. Of course, the coach catches the gang at work & they're all given a vigorous workout to punish them, but not before a couple of the guys slip Marty a joint, which he tries to smoke in the chemistry lab, but it's full of something that makes him sick & when he runs to the restroom, one of his classmates slips in and puts a chemical that reacts with something Marty is mixing, which results in a fire and the spill of a bottle of nitric acid, which leaves poor Marty burned & horribly scarred.<br /><br />Ten years later, this same gang is headed for their class reunion at good old Doddsville High, which seems oddly boarded up and inaccessible, but thanks to ingenuity they manage to get in and find the place seemingly derelict...except there's a room where a banquet and liquor is laid out and so of course, they eat, drink, and be merry. For soon, they will die, of course.<br /><br />The gang is stalked one-by-one by a figure in a jester's mask, but could it be Marty? They don't know, they figure he's either in a loony bin or working for IBM, they're not sure which. But whoever it is, he's making quick work of them. Particularly nasty is the girl that takes a bath to wash blood off her from one of her classmates whose innards popped all over her when he drank poisoned beer. She is victim to an acid bath which I believe may have been one of the parts originally cut in the tape version, because it seemed extra nasty when I watched it this time. I could be wrong but I believe that wasn't on the tape.<br /><br />At any rate, there's somewhat of a twist ending, and that also contains footage not on the tape, I believe. There's also a bit of frontal nudity early on that was also excised, but apart from that I didn't really notice if there were other bits on this uncut version, probably so but it's been a while since I've last seen it.<br /><br />At any rate, if you're a fan of 80's slasher flicks then snap up the new release DVD, because it's a fun little slasher with a good atmosphere & feel to it. 7 out of 10. | positive |
I´m from Germany and I love the mvovies. I go 200 times a year. Tonight I saw "Pecker", it was a wonderful evening. Thank you, Mr. Waters. Everybody who has a chance to see the movie, go!!! | positive |
I don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.<br /><br />You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.<br /><br />I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no. | negative |
Some movies are repellent but still fascinating (Pulp Fiction); others are simply boring. This movie has an almost unique feature of being both utterly repellent and totally boring. By the end I didn't care about any of the characters, I just wanted all of them dead so I could get out of the theatre. | negative |
This movie is without a doubt the best I have seen in my entire life. The stellar star cast is only an added bonus over the amazing special effects, and profound story and sublime choreography. The movie is about an ancient love affair that folds down into the modern world. Two lovers in heaven incur the wrath of a great sage and are cursed. Subsequently the woman is born again on earth. While she is in college, she is raped and commits suicide. The rest of the movie basically focuses on the hunting down of the people who were associated with the rape, by her lover who possesses superhuman strength and the mastery of several languages. Sonu Nigam delivers a very mature and deep performance in this film, and all the other actors do almost as well. Te action scenes with Akshay Kumar are mind-blowing, and must not be missed. You simply HAVE to watch this movie!!! | positive |
My mother is as Gone With The Wind as one can be. She has the collector's plates, the Rhett and Scarlett Madame Alexander dolls, GWTW Christmas ornaments, even a GWTW cookbook! My sister and I had only seen bits and pieces of GWTW but we knew the whole plot by heart. On a whim, my sister bought this miniseries thinking my mother would like it and we had taken an interest in it after leafing through the novel a bit.<br /><br />Yesterday we decided to watch both Gone With The Wind and Scarlett. We started GWTW at about 2:30 in the afternoon and ended it at 6:30. We started Scarlett right after. My mother usually goes to bed at about 10:00, she wound up staying up until 1:30 with us to finish it! We were riveted! I like how the movie starts off at Melanie's funeral, right where Scarlett left off saying, "I'll think about it tomorrow." Scarlett doesn't stay in Georgia for long, she runs off to Charleston in her quest to win him back. Rhett is not happy when he finds Scarlett in his home so he leaves for the family's plantation. Scarlett, being Scarlett, follows him and they finally agree to put aside their quarrels for a time in order to keep the gossip at bay. Rhett starts to enjoy her company again and takes her out on his boat. A storm comes up and they sink. He helps her swim to the shore of some island. Terrified that she has died, Rhett is anxious until she awakes. When she does they both get swept up in the moment and make love. Scarlett wakes up the next day back in Charleston but Rhett has gone and writes that he thinks it best if they never see each other again.<br /><br />Scarlett is heartbroken and when she is so she does some stupid things, in this case she is seen by Anne Hampton going up into a hotel room alone with Ashley. Nothing happens, but her reputation is stained so Scarlett goes to Savannah with her two spinster aunts. She soon discovers that she is pregnant and decides to wait for the right time to tell Rhett. While in Savannah she meets many of her O'Hara relatives and grows to like one cousin in particular a Father Colum. She soon gets her divorce notice from Rhett and then decides she will never tell him about her baby just to spite him. Typical Scarlett.<br /><br />She decides to go to Ireland to make sure Rhett can never discover her condition. She meets many more relatives and buys a beautiful ancestral home Ballyhara. Through out this time, Rhett is courting Anne. It is on Halloween when Scarlett gets the notice that Rhett has remarried, she goes into labor that night.<br /><br />The movie skips to a year later and Scarlett is very happy with her beautiful daughter Kat. She is being pursued by Lord Richard Fenton who is really an evil man, forcing a young girl named Mary Boyle to sleep with him. Scarlett meets Rhett and Anne again at a horse fair. After a riding accident, Scarlett has a conversation with Anne and learns that she and Rhett are to have a baby. Heartbroken again, Scarlett leaves and goes to Dublin with Fenton. There she cultivates a relationship with him, like I said, she does stupid things when she is heartbroken.<br /><br />Mary Boyle has discovered she is pregnant and goes to Colum for help. The priest urges Fenton to help the girl and Fenton murders him after Colum threatens to tell Scarlett. Fenton convinces Scarlett to go to London with him to escape her grief over Colum's death. Mary asks to go with her. Back in Charleston, Anne has died of Yellow Fever. It is made clear that she never bore Rhett a child.<br /><br />In London, Scarlett sees Fenton's true colors after he hurts her when she isn't in the mood the sleep with him. Fenton rapes her after she tells him she never wants to see him again. She falls unconscious after and when she wakes up Fenton has been stabbed to death. Scarlett is charged with his murder.<br /><br />Rhett hears about it and rushes off to England with Sally in tow. Fearful of the gallows, Scarlett has no choice but to tell Rhett about their daughter. Rhett is furious at her for keeping such a secret but stays to help her. Mary Boyle, the real killer, can't be found. Scarlett is found guilty but Mary finally arrives to declare her innocence. After promising to help Mary, Scarlett leaves with Rhett for Ireland because as he says, "It's time I became acquainted with my daughter." The scene where he sees Kat for the first time is absolutely beautiful. In Ireland, Rhett sees how much Scarlett has changed and the two finally reconcile completely and admit they still love each other deeply.<br /><br />After seeing GWTW, I will say that yes, Vivian Leigh was a better Scarlett, but I liked the character of Scarlett in this film than in the first. The reason being that in GWTW, you don't know why you like Scarlett. She's so cruel to Rhett and haughty and spoiled, but you like her lively spirit. In Scarlett, you see how much she has changed. Oh she is still in the lap of luxury, but she's not haughty anymore. You see how she becomes a true mother to Kat and a generous person to the poor people of Ireland. Joanne Whalley does and excellent job at playing this new side of Scarlett. Timothy Dalton is not Clark Gable, but at times you swear that you can see original Rhett in him.<br /><br />If you just sit back and not compare Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton with Vivian Leigh and Clark Gable, you will most certainly enjoy this movie. It's a chance to compare the Scarlett of yesterday, the one she becomes after "tomorrow". | positive |
This movie is a half-documentary...and it is pretty interesting....<br /><br />This is a good movie...based on the true story of how a bunch of norwegian saboturs managed to stop the heavy water production in Rukjan, Norway and the deliverance of the rest of the heavy water to Germany.<br /><br />This movie isn't perfect and it could have been a bit better... the best part of the movie is that some of the saboturs are played by themselves!!!<br /><br />If you're interested in history of WWII and film this is a movie that's worth a look!! | positive |
I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.<br /><br />With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.<br /><br />All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$<br /><br />3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan) | negative |
the photography was beautiful but i had difficulty understanding what was happening... was there a lot of symbolism?... the 2 goldfishes - do they mean something in Thai culture? there's not much plot, not much happens and it just meanders along. no real start, no real middle and no real end. rather unsatisfying really.<br /><br />It was difficult to get into the characters as you never felt you got to know them...it was difficult to know which scenes were imaginary and which were real. The move felt chaotic and disjointed. I don't know what the pang brothers were hoping to achieve. Maybe if I were Thai it would make more sense... | positive |
This American masterpiece came as near perfection as popular art contrives to be, from its beautifully equivocal and suggestive title to the magnificent performance elicited by William Wyler from the nonprofessional amputee Harold Russell
<br /><br />The film epitomized both the dream and the reality of the postwar world
This intimate engagement with the psychological facts of American life gave it an almost universal audience
But, unlike contemporary and preceding "message" pictures, it was not a preachment
It showed Americans as they are, presented their problems as they themselves see them, and provided only such solutionspartial, temporary, personalas they themselves would accept
The picture's values are the values of the people in it
<br /><br />William Wyler, an outstanding director, triple winner of the best picture Oscar, adds an air of distinction to melodrama, epic and Westerns... With his distinguishing visual style and his taste for solemn material, he gained a reputation as a meticulous, serious artist... Wyler's most adept use of deep-focus reveals the real commitment to emotional content...<br /><br />The film tells the story of three men coming home from war to a small middle-American community, and find it variously difficult to pick up where they left off... The three heroes are: a middle-aged sergeant (Fredric March), magnificent as the devoted family man who succeeds in breaking the ice with his family; an incisive Air Force captain (Dana Andrews) returning to an unfaithful wife; and a tormented sailor (Harold Russell) who has lost both hands in service, replaced by hooks in real life...<br /><br />Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, "The Best Years of Our Lives" is eloquent and compassionate, a deeply personal motion picture with touching wordless homecoming scenes: <br /><br />- The first words of the sergeant's loving wife when he arrives home unexpectedly: "I look terrible! It isn't fair of you to burst in on us like this."<br /><br />- The involuntarily sob of the sailor's mother when she first sees her son's mechanical hands... She blurts out: "It's nothing!"<br /><br />With her dry-martini voice, Myrna Loy combines charmingly her wifely qualities with motherly ones; Teresa Wright is lovely as the sergeant's nice daughter who falls in love with the pilot; Virginia Mayo is harsh as the disloyal flashy blonde wife whose first loves are money and high life; and Cathy O'Donnell is wonderful and sensitive as the sailor's fiancée...<br /><br />The situations and even some of the characters seem a little obvious, but this is a superb example of high-quality film-making in the forties, with smiles and tears cunningly spaced and a film which says what is needed on a vital subject... | positive |
Legend has it that at the gala Hollywood premiere screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey, about 20 minutes into the film Rock Hudson yelled out "Would somebody please tell me what the hell this movie is about?" Well, I have Rock beaten by about 19 minutes, 59 seconds. This movie made absolutely no sense at all. Who were those people? Where were those people? What were the rules of the game called Quintet? Are there any rules to Quintet? Were Robert Altman and his cohorts making the movie up as they went along? What was Paul Newman thinking when he signed on to this? Maybe ol' Fast Eddie saw Zardoz and thought "Well if Connery can get involved in a futuristic film that makes no sense, so can I." Maybe the good stuff is on the cutting room floor and all we get to see is the incoherent stuff. Also, did all the cast get to keep their individual funny hats? You never saw such bizarre looking hats all in one place in your life. Quintet just confirms what I've always thought: when Altman's good he's superb, but when he's bad, he makes stuff like Quintet | negative |
Let's Get Tough is one of those movies that people probably regret years later that they made. Full of awful racist Jap talk and jokes, this East End Kids story details how the kids want to join the military to defeat the Japs. Since they're too young, they decide to clean the town out of those dastardly Japs. They find one, throw fruit at it (without anyone doing anything to stop them) and he pulls a short sword out to menace them! The cops say to stop annoying him! He's only Chinese! He's on our side! When the kids go back to apologize, the Chinese man's dead! It's all part of this huge Jap and German Spy ring! The kids see to it that this is stopped At All Costs! I'm sure all of this was fine when it was made (1942) but viewed now, you realize of course, that this is clearly a product of it's time. Full of stereotypes, German and Japanese. Funny how the East End Kids have a black kid in the group, and he's not spared either. Gee whiz. | negative |
Elvira(Cassandra Peterson) is the host of a cheap horror show. After she finds out that her dead aunt has left her some stuff, elvira goes to England to pick it up, hoping it will be some money. But to her horror, elvira finds out that all her aunt has left her is her house, her dog and a cookbook. Elvira decides to settle in the house anyways, but with her striking dark looks and her stunning features, she will not be able to live in peace. All the neighbours are now turning the whole town against her, and with Elvira's outrageous attitude and looks, everyone better watch out, because Elvira is on Fire! I really enjoyed this movie, it's really fun to watch get Elvira into all these adventures, she's just great. The whole movie puts you into a halloween mood, sure, it's silly and the jokes are cheap but it's a pleasure to watch it. I would give Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark 8/10 | positive |
This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.<br /><br />The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the "mute" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.<br /><br />I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet. | positive |
Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .<br /><br />First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie<br /><br />When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations<br /><br />I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised | negative |
Note: I couldn't force myself to actually write up a constructive review of Prom Night. It just can't be done. Instead, I went through what I thought about while watching the movie.<br /><br />Things that I thought about while watching Prom Night: <br /><br />-I'm so tired of those dreams where these elaborate deaths will take place, only for the main character to wake up right before she bites it. Of course, when I say "elaborate deaths", I mean off screen throat slashes or stabs in the stomach. Didn't the whole "it's just a dream" thing get ruined by Dallas? Speaking of which, I wonder if a couple stabs in the gut will cause immediate death.<br /><br />-The film is only ten minutes into and I can already count the horror clichés on two hands. Not a good sign.<br /><br />-Even after just meeting the protagonist's boyfriend, I'm convinced he will die. Anybody want to place bets? <br /><br />-The killer in this movie is a teacher that is obsessed with the main character, Donna. (By the way, does anybody think that "Donna" is a horrible name for a main character in a horror film?) He spends three years in a maximum security prison before breaking out and finds Donna celebrating her high school prom. While there is no accounting for taste, I seriously wonder who would take all that time to stalk somebody as dull as Donna.<br /><br />-High schools allow proms to take place at hotels and doesn't keep track of the students. Apparently students are perfectly able to buy a hotel room and go in and out as they please. I suppose if this plot point wasn't in place, the movie would be 90 minutes of people being bored out of their mind and randomly biting the dust whenever they go to the bathroom. I suppose the trade-off for their excitement is my utter boredom with everything. I've already played "count the pieces of chewed bubble gum under the seat" and "guess how much money I have in my wallet" and I'm only in the 20 minute mark. How else will I entertain myself? <br /><br />-Note to self: Don't forget milk and bread on the way home.<br /><br />-Dear screenwriter: You've used up enough false scares to get through this movie and every other horror remake this year.<br /><br />-The 1980 version of this film wasn't that good but compared to this remake it was like Citizen Kane, or at least The Godfather. It had Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her many post-Halloween horror flicks and it did have a little "twist" at the end. I miss Jamie Lee. I wish she'd act more.<br /><br />-Apparently at prom there isn't much dancing going on. Instead the girls get in fights with their boyfriends over where they plan to attend college. I hear all these colleges being brought up by name, and I can't help but wonder who these girls have to cheat off of on the entrance exam to get in.<br /><br />-The killer must carry a bag of really effective cleaning supplies and wipes up his mess between scenes. That's the only logical explanation for why he could stab somebody to death on the carpet or in the bathroom and by the time somebody goes up to the hotel room, there is no trace of a struggle. (On another side note: This is a very lazy killer. Michael Myers went hunting after his victims. Just saying.)<br /><br />-It's official: the entire audience in the theater is rooting on the killer. What triggered it? Was it whenever Donna went back up to her hotel room while sirens were going off ordering everybody to exit the building? Was it her constant dreams, and how even after going through something dramatic in said dream she insisted on reenacting her steps to a tee? Or was it Brittany Snow's unconvincing performance? I'll have to say it was all of the above.<br /><br />-Okay, who had "he dies off screen in the third act"? You win the pot.<br /><br />-Finally, the movie is over. My friend turns to me and says "Donna wasn't too smart." That's the understatement of the week. Kind of like saying that a tornado is a small gust of wind, or a week long power outage is a slight inconvenience.<br /><br />-I can't wait to get on Rotten Tomatoes and see if anybody gave this move a favoring review.<br /><br />-I can't recommend this. I refuse to recommend this. This is as lazy of a horror film as any, and the only way to enjoy its cheese smelling plot is if you are under the influence of at least ten beers. And unfortunately for theater patrons, alcohol isn't served.<br /><br />Rating: * out of **** | negative |
This movie just seemed to lack direction. The plot developed so many twists in such a short amount of time that it seemed to lose any semblance of what the true storyline was. There was a lot of wasted dialogue and just seemed like the writing was rushed and a little too wandering. The exorcism scenes and possession story began to take a back seat to the character's back stories (which were a little weak to begin with).<br /><br />All in all, I would say skip it unless you have rented out the rest of the horror section at your local video store and you have a jones for a movie you haven't seen before. You're much better off just watching The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose. | negative |
Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.<br /><br />Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car. <br /><br />Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.<br /><br />What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen. <br /><br />Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.<br /><br />Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into. | negative |
A few years ago, I bought several $1 DVD's that contained two movies each. One of them had Three Broadway Girls (an alternate title for The Greeks Had a Word for Them) and this one, Happy Go Lovely. It's basically a backstage musical comedy that takes place in Scotland and concerns mistaken identity involving one of the dancers hitching a ride from a millionaire's limousine. Vera-Ellen is that dancer and-wow, what legs! Ceasar Romero is her producer who takes a chance on her after the original leading lady leaves because he thinks she's dating the millionaire whose car I just mentioned. And David Niven is that rich guy who, when looking for Vera-Ellen, is mistaken for a reporter who's supposed to interview her but gets stalled by Romero. What I've just mentioned may be confusing but (mostly) makes sense if you're willing to check your brain while watching this charmingly screwball comedy with wonderful musical numbers as performed by the exquisite Ms. Vera-Ellen. Romero can be a bit frantic here but Niven becomes hilariously bemused throughout. The print I saw was actually pretty good considering its age and the fact that it's in public domain. And Vera-Ellen does pretty well with her lines since she's not really an actress. So on that note, I highly recommend Happy Go Lovely for movie buffs who love old-fashioned musical comedies. | positive |
"The Devil in the Dark" is William Shatner's favorite episode. It is also one of my favorite episodes. The program is pure Star Trek because it deals with one of the series' main themes: the respect for other life forms. I do not think one could get a clearer example of one of the show's most interesting ideas. In this episode, Kirk and his crew have to confront a monster that is killing miners on a distant planet. The story is an excuse to explore the right that humans have to destroy creatures that are a vital part of the environment. Today's concerns with environmental causes make the show more relevant now than ever before. It is extremely well written and performed with gusto by our beloved cast. One memorable sequence involves Spock joining with the mind of the monster. Plenty of tension between Spock and Kirk (they want to solve the problem using different methods) adds to the fun. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy do some of their best work here. | positive |
I enjoyed this film very much. It effectively combines humor, fantasy, and a few moments of horror with a solid film making effort from Higuchinsky. Brilliant visuals and a very original story concerning spirals. My only complaints are that it had its dull moments and wasn't as daring as it could have been. Still, I give this a solid 8 out of 10. The U.S. should take note of this and other fine Japanese horror/fantasy films that have come along recently and have them available on Region 1 DVD. Actually, Asian cinema in general, have some of the finest films that have been unnoticed by the American public because they're hard to find. I strongly recommend people to go look for these treasures, they're hard to find, but once you find them, you'll be glad you did. | positive |
People must learn to watch what is up there on the screen. This is a great film that is based on a slow, careful gathering of details which serve to establish the personalities of these two men. The passivity of Yusuf (Emin Toprak), the country cousin, is well described by his fear of talking to women. He has at least three chances to start a conversation with a young woman and loses all of them. He has many decades of bachelorhood ahead of him, and maybe unemployment as well.<br /><br />Mahmut is a different case. He got out of the small town by working very hard (we imagine), and his resentment of slackers like Yusuf is palpable (he leaves crumbs on the expensive carpet--the slob!). We are shown a group of friends talking about Tarkovsky among other things, and we note that Mahmut feels regret--but only slight regret--that his work has become commercial over the years. The gulf between the cousins just gets wider and wider. The mouse trap theme is wonderfully vivid, it brings out the compassion and confusion of Yusuf, and the cold-blooded problem solving of Mahmut.<br /><br />I was reminded of two classic films of men driving each other nuts: Les cousins by Chabrol (the rich boy with Hitlerian pretensions played by Brialy is always in my mind) and Kiss of the Spider Woman (William Hurt can't figure out why everybody's so mean). Nuri Bilge Ceylan takes his place among the dozen important directors now active. I just hope that in future he will come to rely on collaborators, instead of directing, writing and shooting his films himself. | positive |
My very favorite character in films, but in nearly all of them the character of Zorro has a small bit of cloth as a mask and if the villain`s can`t tell who is under that cloth then they are daft.<br /><br />But in Reed Hadley`s "Zorro`s Fighting Legion" (serial 1939) the mask fills his whole face making it a real mystery as to who Zorro really is.<br /><br />But anyway Zorro is one of the best character`s in films and to bring it up to date l think Anthony Hopkins in "The Mask of Zorro" (1998) is a delight.<br /><br />My interest in films is vast, but l have a real liking for the serial`s of the 30s/40s....<br /><br />Bond2a | positive |
This movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic, mindless, explicit bragging about sexual exploits and F... in almost every sentence. Like a good plot? Like comedy? Like romance or other human values? Stay away from Whipped. It was so bad I left after about half an hour. I saw two kids slip in that looked to be about 10 -- very harmful -- this deserves an X. | negative |
OK, OK, I must say I was impressed. It's hard to say what I'm more impressed with: my ability to choose the right romantic comedy to watch so that I don't gouge my eyes out, or the movie itself. Either way, "Hitch" was pretty darn good. Hey, it was good enough for me to watch twice. Will Smith was funny and good. Kevin James was just hilarious, and absolutely essential for the movie. As much as this movie centered around Hitch (Will Smith), without Kevin James it's just not the same.<br /><br />The story is: Hitch is a match maker that helps the guy woo the girl. His job is to create the chance for the girl to notice the guy when she otherwise wouldn't. After the encounter, the rest is all up to the guy to make or break the relationship. He works on referral only and stays largely unnoticed during the process. Albert (Kevin James) is Hitch's project this time around, and Albert has eyes on Allegra Cole (Amber Valleta) a Paris Hilton type figure. While that plot unfolds, Hitch himself has eyes on Sara (Eva Mendes), a sharp, independent, fanged gossip columnist that wants nothing to do with a relationship.<br /><br />The two stories make for some funny moments and they tie together for a bit of a quagmire. Of course no love story is complete without the obligatory miscommunication, misunderstanding, or mishap to send the guy chasing after the girl. Fortunately, they make it brief and unsappy. Hitch was a fun and funny movie that flowed very well and rolled along without a hitch. | positive |
this is a great movie. i like it where ning climbs down to get his ink, and the skeletons chase him, but luckily he dodged them, opened the window, and didn't even notice them. xiao qian is very pretty too. & when he stuck the needle up ma Wu's butt, its hysterical. and when he is saying love is the greatest thing on earth while standing between two swords is great too. then also the part where he eats his buns while watching thew guy kill many people. then you see him chanting poems as he ran to escape the wolves. the love scenes are romantic, xiao qian and ning look cute together. add the comic timing, the giant tongue, and u have horror, romance, comedy, all at once. not to mention superb special effects for the 90s. | positive |
My Super X-Girlfriend is one hell of a roller coaster ride. The special effects were excellent and the costumes Uma Thurman wore were hubba buba. Uma Thurman is an underrated comedic actress but she proved everyone wrong and nailed her role as the lunatic girlfriend. She was just simply FABULOUS!!! Luke Wilson was also good as the average Joe but he was a brave man to work with one of the greatest actresses of all time. The supporting cast was also superb especially Anna Faris who was extremely good (A lot better than in the Scary Movie franchise).<br /><br />Ivan Rietman did very well in directing this film because if it wasn't for him and Uma Thurman this film wouldn't have done so well. This film is clearly a 10/10 for it's cast (Uma Thurman), it's director, it's screenplay and from it's original plot line. This film is very highly recommended. | positive |
This was the worst TV movie I had ever seen. The visuals were so dang choppy it made me dizzy. I hated the constant zoom in and zoom out, and the frequent Black and White to Color switch. I also thought that The story didn't make any sense what so ever, and it was another clichéd Action Movie, with a hero a bad guy, and a few hostages. I could make a better movie than that with my own camera, why? I can hold it steady, something the director couldn't do. Over all truly the worst I have ever seen, you thought Disney was bad? I didn't even bother to watch the whole thing because I'm sure I could guess the outcome, and the visual were the worst I have ever seen. | negative |
I had looked forward to viewing this movie, it seemed anyone who had seen it loved it. I was completely disappointed. The acting was so overdone. The script seemed like the writer had gathered 25 different scripts from various movies and randomly chose dialogue and pieced them together to form one plagarized script.<br /><br />Spoilers: Was any cliche omitted in this movie? There was a mobstyle hit, homosexuality, prostitution, a serial killer, a fire, numerous godfather wannabees, the main character in love with the prostitute, cross dressing, torture by the police, Hannibal Lechter style mutilations, I could go on and on.<br /><br />Line's like (the godfather wannabe to the prostitute)<br /><br />-"Ben senin arik calismani istemiyorum" (I don't want u to work anymore)<br /><br />-"Ben calismasam kirayi kim odeyecek?" (Who would pay the rent if I didn't work)<br /><br />Unrealistic scenes: We never saw a single policeman during the serial killer scenes, yet when the main character disappeared his father was taken in by the police and tortured for weeks.<br /><br />The only way I can make sense out of this whole movie, is if the version I had scene was severely edited from the original. I definitely do not recommend it, and would greatly enjoy discussing it further with anyone who would care to do so.<br /><br /> | negative |
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being "among the best" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.<br /><br />The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the "shocking truth"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution. | negative |
This should be required viewing for all young people. This is documentary at its best, from the haunting music and terrific narration by Olivier to its unflinching and penetrating analyses, The World at War is unforgettable and irreplaceable for anyone who wants to know about humanity's sorry experience at the nadir of the 20th century. | positive |
Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to "The Devil's Triangle", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick covering the topic earned big money at the box office. "The Devil's Triangle" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of "strange occurrences" and "mysterious vanishings" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words "
just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle
". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance! | negative |
Having worked professionally with young girls on the run, I found this film surprisingly authentic. I would never have found it had a friend not loaned his videotape. There are classic themes here: Coming of Age, Mother/Daughter Estrangement, The Limited Choices of the Underprivileged, Who is the Good Samaritan, Tragedy is in Every Life & the many layers or relationships. Flashbacks are meaningful (when Alice acquires a gun we know she has some familiarity with how to use it) and it does not end in cliché. The cast really "sells" their roles. It is adult material and the audio is a bit too grainy. Allow it 15 minutes to so to draw you in. | positive |
Also known as "Water Lilies" this film tells the story of two girls as they struggle their way into the world of love and sex. This story is told at a slow pace and that works very well. It gives plenty of time and space to get to know the different characters and to grow somewhat attached to them.<br /><br />Using a small cast puts some extra pressure on the people playing as they all have some more screen time than normal but the people playing in this film handle that well. Everyone is completely believable. Visual setting is great, especially the underwater shots in the swimming pool add a nice effect.<br /><br />Many films have been made about the same subject though and this one does not really stand out above any of them. It pulls some "standard" pressure methods out of the high hat and works on them. It isn't bad, not at all, but it surely isn't great either and I do feel it could have done better if it had taken some what less explored angles.<br /><br />7 out of 10 synchronous swimmers | positive |
I loved this movie. First, because it is a family movie. Second, because it offers a refreshing take on dealing with the news of HIV in a family, with far less hysteria than what I have normally seen in the movies. The brothers are very close, yet are not judgmental. Their desire to protect the youngest brother is noble, but not needed in the end. I understand that Leo's choice on how to deal with his treatment may not have been the most popular one with people, but I believed it was the right choice for him. I can't believe that this was a french television programme. It had great production values. I gave this movie a ten, and I think you will too, once you have seen it. | positive |
A total and utter travesty of a movie.'Dark power'is the kind of film even troma would be embarrassed to release.The script,direction,acting and action sequence's are so dire as to be almost painful to watch and one cant help thinking that it's mere 75 minute running time could have been better spent. The above reviewer must be related to the director as that's the only reason i can see for his/her appraisal of this rubbish,some might call it b-movie fun or 'so bad it's good' just to excuse there enjoyment of it,but when the lead actor ( and most experienced cast member) cant deliver his lines convincingly you know you've got a very,very bad movie.Avoid at all costs. | negative |
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.<br /><br />Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.<br /><br />The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?<br /><br />Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.<br /><br />Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.<br /><br />The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.<br /><br />The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.<br /><br />Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.<br /><br /> | negative |
There is little more that I would like to say about this movie than it really can touch your heart if you let it. Sure, it's surrounded by all the stereotypical Hollywood stuff, but I found myself actually engrossed in this movie and very interested in the outcome. I'd recommend it to all you romantics out there in a second! | positive |
David Mackenzie's follow-up to the brilliant Young Adam wants to be a feel-good underdog story of a lonely voyeur who is trying to confront some psycho-sexual issues with his dead mother. It wants to be gritty, realistic, and mysterious. At the same time, it wants to be funny and nonjudgmental of its disturbed lead as he establishes himself as an adult.<br /><br />To meet this end, the film tries hard to be youthful. Its poster has hand-drawn letters looking like that of Juno. Its original soundtrack is comprised of fast-paced indie rock which tries to convince the audience that Hallam is OK; just a little misguided. But strangely the film is anything but youthful.<br /><br />Like Young Adam this film's central mystery concerns a drowned woman- in this case Hallam's mother. Young Adam keeps its mystery quiet, contemplative, and paced well enough to hit you with the truths as they come. Hallam Foe does the opposite. It foregrounds its character's psychosis so clearly and so early that he never really does anything outside his expected parameters. The opening scene is Hallam in his treehouse watching his sister fooling around with her boyfriend. Hallam swiftly interrupts, asserting his presence in the household. Here we see everything that Hallam will do for the rest of the movie.<br /><br />The mystery surrounding his mother's drowning is whether it was suicide or murder by his father's girlfriend. The audience can never really trust Hallam because, besides being creepy, we think his obsession has led him close to insanity. This hindered the mystery element for me because Hallam is too sporadic to be relatable. Right when he's found some clues that would support his claim he runs away from home, at first it appearing to be looking for the police. Then he gets extremely sidetracked by a girl who resembles his mother, which frustratingly leads the story away from the mystery element.<br /><br />While Jamie Bell does bring out some very endearing traits in his lost character, he was limited by the obviousness of his psychological needs. This movie is in no way mysterious, yet it is not blunt either. It tries to be realistic in dealing with such issues, but it adds a very self-conscious spunk which registers itself as quite the opposite. It goes for a soundtrack-heavy, Trainspotting attitude to help the audience root for a protagonist who scales buildings, picks locks, and camps out for the sake of voyeurism. These urban peeping tom adventures Hallam engages in are way too difficult for an inward-drawn country boy to engage in and they are not sexy, giddy, or pleasant. They are more neutral than anything; not propelling the character or story. Mackenzie makes you understand Hallam, yet he fails to build common ground.<br /><br />He expects you to enjoy Hallam's trials and tribulations without much ideological justification. The film hinges on its audience's perspective on voyeurism/the kind of person who engages in it. Obviously, most people would be disgusted by it. And Hallam Foe realizes that, but it does not let us see Hallam weigh the morality of his decisions. He goes from person to person, trying to fill his deep void. There is a particularly disturbing line from Hallam's love interest Kate where she drunkenly says "I love creepy boys," perhaps asking the audience to do the same. The line tries to foreshadow her understanding of him (her motivation remains vague throughout) and tries to further us from judging him. It's not hard to like Hallam, but it is very hard to participate in his adventure- if it is even an adventure at all. All the while, the film tries to use its flamboyant soundtrack to mask its indecisive mood.<br /><br />Great performances are weighed down by a film with a weak third act, muddy development, and needlessly ambiguous direction from Mackenzie. Recently this film was re-named for a US release, and for what reason? Not only is it more unappealing, but the hard truth is that the Hallam character never earns the title 'mister.' | negative |
What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here? <br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.<br /><br />Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.<br /><br />Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.<br /><br />I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.<br /><br />For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10 <br /><br />Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star. | negative |
Tintin and I recently aired as an episode of PBS's P.O.V. series. It's based on a taped interview of Georges Remi a.k.a. Herge, Tintin's creator, from 1971 in which in discusses his various experiences publishing his popular character, first in a Catholic newspaper, then in his own series of comic books. Awesome sweeping views of various comic pages and surreal images of Herge's dreams. I first encountered Tintin in the pages of Children's Digest at my local elementary school library reading The Secrets of the Unicorn. My mom later got a subscription to CD and I read the entire Red Rackham's Treasure every month in 1978. I remember seeing some Tintin comic books in a local book store after that but for some reason I didn't get any probably because I was 12 and I thought I was outgrowing them. I do have Breaking Free, a book written and drawn by J. Daniels, published in 1989, six years after Herge's death. Haven't read it yet. This film also covers the artist's personal life as when he left his first wife after his affair with a colorist in his employ (whom he later married). Her name is Fanny and she is interviewed here. If you love Tintin and his creator, this film is definitely worth a look. Update: 9/4/07-I've now read Breaking Free. Tintin and The Captain are the only regular characters that appear here and they are tailored to the anti-capitalist views of Mr. Daniels with Tintin portrayed as a rabble rouser with a chip on his shoulder who nevertheless cares for The Captain who he's staying with. The Captain here is just trying to make ends meet with a wife and daughter that he loves dearly. They and other construction workers vow to strike after a fellow employee dies from a faulty equipment accident. The whole thing takes place in England with working-class cockney accents intact. Not the kind of thing Herge would approve of but an interesting read nonetheless. Oh, yes, dog Snowy only appears in the top left corner of the cover (which has Tintin running over the police!) and the dedication page. | positive |
How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.<br /><br />I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character. | negative |
I think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.<br /><br />Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!! | negative |
I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.<br /><br />Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.<br /><br />And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.<br /><br />The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.<br /><br />The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.<br /><br />What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!<br /><br />But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.