review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This short film certainly pulls no punches. The story is of a butcher who wrongfully kills an innocent man who he believes has sexually molested his retarded daughter. The film goes onto depict how the butcher serves his time, and returns to life with his daughter in care, and having to come to terms with a life with no future.<br /><br />The graphic opening scenes of a horse being slaughtered, and the full frontal birth of the butchers daughter puts you a brutal frame of mind that stays with you throughout the film.<br /><br />The snappy flow of the film is very direct and adds to its brutality. Consequently alot of ground is covered in the 40 minutes. You are taken in fully with the butchers non-life - particularly after he loses his daughter to social services and his business. His story continues in the excellent film Seul Contre Tous | positive |
Hearkening back to those "Good Old Days" of 1971, we can vividly recall when we were treated with a whole Season of Charles Chaplin at the Cinema. That's what the promotional guy called it when we saw him on somebody's old talk show. (We can't recall just whose it was; either MERV GRIFFIN or WOODY WOODBURY, one or the other!) The guest talked about Sir Charles' career and how his films had been out of circulation ever since the 1952 exclusion of the former "Little Tramp' from Los Estados Unidos on the grounds of his being an "undesirable Alien". (No Schultz, he's NOT from another Planet!) <br /><br />CHARLIE had been deemed to be a 'subversive' due to his interest and open inquiry into various Political and Economic Systems. Everything from the Anarchist movement from the '20s (and before), the Technocracy craze to Socialism in its various forms were fair game for discussion at Chaplin's Hollywood parties; which of course meant the inclusion of the Soviet style, which we commonly call Communism.<br /><br />COMPOUNDING Mr. Chaplin's predicament was both confounded by one little detail. He had never become an American Citizen.<br /><br />ANYHOW, enough of this background already! <br /><br />SUFFICE it to say that he had become 'Persona Non Gratis' in the United States of America. .It was high time to get the old films out of the mothballs and back out to the Movie Houses. It'd sure be a great gesture by us easily forgiving and quickly forgetting Americanos.<br /><br />IT would be a fine gesture to the great film making artist; besides, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences was planning to honor Chaplin with a special tribute at the 1972 Oscar Show. This would surely be a tearful yet joyous packaging of pathos a plenty for having America invite Charlie back and have him come and receive a special Academy Lifetime Achievement Award in front of a World-wide Television Audience numbering in the Millions. <br /><br />BESIDES, that would be a natural for promoting the Chaplin Season at the Theatre! (Remember, the Little Tramp was as astute as a Bu$ine$$ Man as he was as a Film Maker!) THE program consisted of showings of MODERN TIMES, CITY LIGHTS, THE GREAT DICTATOR, MONSEUR VERDOUX, A KING IN NEW YORK and finally THE CHAPLIN REVUE. We remember being very excited in the anticipation of the multi date film fest.<br /><br />IN our fair city of Chicago, it was booked for the Carnegie Theatre on Rush Street. The festivities lead off with MODERN TIMES and all of the others would be shown one at a time, each staying for whatever period was necessary in order to satisfy the public's desire to view each picture. As we recall, the very last on the schedule was THE CHAPLIN REVUE.<br /><br />IN RETROSPECT, we look back and wish that they had begun the run with REVUE; as there were undoubtedly legions of moviegoers (much like ourselves) who knew very little about his accomplishments in motion pictures, except for those Keystone, Essanay and Mutual Silent Shorts that were being shown as regular feature on so, so many Kiddy Shows all over the country. Oh well, once again, no one consulted me!<br /><br />CONCENTRATING on today's honored guest film, THE CHAPLIN REVUE, we found that it was actually three separate pictures; carefully bound together by the use of narration by Chaplin (Himself), some lively Themes and Incidental Music (once again written by Chaplin) and some happy talk and serious narration (Ditto, by Chaplin.) He opens up the proceedings by making use of some home movie-type of film depicting the construction of the Chaplin Studio in Hollywood, as well as some film taken of some rehearsal time, showing Director Chaplin demonstrating just what he wants to a group of actors.<br /><br />THIS segment was well done and well received by the audience. Both the building humor and the rehearsal were amplified by making them seem accelerated. (The rehearsal naturally, the building by use of speeding up the camera's photographic process. The old trick makes it appear that the buildings were almost building themselves.<br /><br />THIS amalgam of shorts incorporated three of Chaplin's short comedies from his stint with First National Pictures.; roughly that being 1917 to 1923. The choice was well thought out and gave us a wide variety of subject matter and mood.<br /><br />FIRST up was SHOULDER ARMS (Charles Chaplin Productions/First National Pictures, 1918). As the title suggests, it is a tale of World War I. Released in October of 1918 with about a month to go before the Armistice Day of November 11, it was a comedy of comical Army gags and a romance between Private Chaplin and a French Girl (Miss Edna Purviance). The levity is fast, physical and in the grand old tradition of ridiculing the Enemy, the German Army.<br /><br />DISPLAYING an excellent example of the old adage about Children and Dogs bringing folks together, the next film A DOG'S LIFE (Chaplin Productions/First National, 1918) traces the parallel lives of Chaplin's Tramp and a newly adopted stray, Scraps. The movie story involves families, two of them. One Homo Sapiens, one Canine and both supplying us with some big surprises.<br /><br />AS the finale, we have THE PILGRIM (Chaplin/First National, 1923) was a good choice to have as the finale. It was bright, light and tight. It was an excursion into the area of the Western Spoof, Comedies of such type having been done since by every comedian and team. The "Pilgrim" in the story is not of your standard Thanksgiving Variety; but rather a "dude" or "Tenderfoot", who has ventured out West. The Tramp is not only that guy; but his character is an escaped Convict who is mistakenly thought to be the new Clergyman of a Western town's Church!<br /><br />OUR Rating (that is Schultz and Me) is ****. (That's Four Derbies)<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | positive |
I loved this movie. I totally disagree with some (negative) critiques that I've read over the years. This was a great vehicle for Eddie Murphy! He appeared to have a great time with his part as Chandler Jarrell and he should never care about what the critics say, if he had fun doing it and most of his audience enjoyed it! And, it WAS fun to watch as it combined some great fantasy tension with Mr. Murphy's great comedic style. You have to keep in mind that 'Golden Child' is a 'fantasy' film just an imaginative work of magic and wonder amidst the 'real' world. During the time this film was released, I was working in a video rental store. This was one of the most popular with all our customers. Every single time, we put this one up on our monitor, ALL the copies we had went out fast with wait-list requests that kept it on the queue for months! Everyone who rented it loved it! I was the resident film critic and all my regular customers would ask my opinion before they rented this was one of my favorites and I knew the taste of my customers so I highly recommended this one to most of them. I really feel that this film is a Sleeper it may not have done too well at the box office due to very poor marketing but it hit a high in the video rental and purchase market later! (YES, I did buy this film for my own video library!). I adored the little boy who played the 'Golden Child' J. L. Reate - but after looking at his profile in IMDb, I noticed that he never did any more films. That is sad, because he definitely had an on-screen aura and could have continued with a film career. I also adored Victor Wong, who played the Old Man (I LOVED him in his part as 'Egg Shen' in 'Big Trouble in Little China' - 1986). At any rate, this was a great film. The only drawbacks that didn't seem to fit with the theme were some of the parts that got a bit more 'adult' in nature such as 'Chandler's rather sexual remarks about the serpent lady that was presented to him as a silhouette. It was funny, but it still was out of sync. OK, so there were a few suggestive gratuitous scenes those were put in for the mind-set of the day perhaps. This was still an adventurous and escapist type of film which we do need today to get away from all the hard core reality and depressing fluff that we are hit with from Hollywood. Now that's Entertainment! | positive |
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this. | negative |
I just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?<br /><br />I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts. <br /><br />Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate movie | negative |
drab morality tale about a high school kid who's pretty much the now-stereotypical nerd. He's smart, but has no friends, no social skills, and a lazy loser of a father who borrows money from HIM. A pretty girl hits on him(he should've known she wanted something-he's supposed to be smart, right?). She manipulates the poor desperate fool into writing her term paper on Shakespeare, which the teacher immediately knows she couldn't have written. He loses the girl(not that he ever really had her) the confidence of his teacher, and his college scholarship, all in one fell blow.<br /><br />Marv is so silly and desperate for love that he decides to rob some heroin dealers who are running the stuff through the warehouse he works at. Then maybe the trashy little slut will be impressed and want to marry him. Sad, really sad. Marv is such a pathetic dope(and pretty brainless, for a supposedly smart guy. I mean, trying to rob drug dealers? Has this kid got a screw loose?) that you stop feeling sorry for him and get the dreadful urge to kick him in the butt, instead.<br /><br />The girl, of course, tells her boyfriend about the robbery Marv boasted of to her, and talks him and his cronies into stealing the money from Marv and company. They try to do so, and in the process manage to shoot several people. The cops show up at the same time, and the idiot Marv is dragged away, a total disgrace forever. I know this thing was geared towards making teens behave themselves by showing them the consequences of bad behavior, but all it really illustrated was the consequences of stupid behavior. Which is the premature end of your film career, of course. Goodbye, Marv, we never really knew ya. And thank goodness for that. | negative |
Lemuel Gulliver (Ted Danson) is a doctor who goes missing at sea, leaving pregnant wife Mary (Mary Steenburgen) behind. Eight years later, he turns up, disheveled and seemingly mad - babbling about his adventures in the lands of the tiny Lilliputians, the giant Brobdingnags, the floating island of the intellectual Laputa, and the Houyhnhnms, a race of intelligent, talking horses who have to deal with the Yahoos - a race of bestial humans - among many other adventures. The not-so-good Dr. Bates (James Fox), who has designs on Lemuel's wife, has Gulliver incarcerated in a mental institution, and Lemuel, Mary, and son Thomas (Tom Sturridge) must find a way to prove his sanity.<br /><br />A splendid adaptation of Jonathan Swift's satirical novel, this film is a magnificent adaptation on so many levels: the story, the satire, the characters, the visuals, the brilliant cast. It's simply a treat to watch, and it's almost amazing considering that it was a made-for-TV film.<br /><br />The film does a brilliant job of capturing Swift's vicious satire, which cuts like a hatchet through British society of the time, but still resonates today. The wise Brobdingnags and the Houyhnhnms are almost perfect individuals who find it virtually impossible to understand why Gulliver speaks with such pride of the vices and corruptions of his society. The scenes where Gulliver struggles to prove himself different from the Yahoos are perhaps the best, with biting satire in describing how they pick their leaders ("they seem to pick the worst among them. . . who rules until they find someone even worse"), go to war ("We only go to war for a very good reason - such as they are weaker than us, or we want all of their land"), etc. The scenes involving Laputa are also effectively done - the intellectuals are so wrapped up in their specialized fields that they have no time for anything else, and really possess little common sense. And the addition of the asylum plot line enhances the story greatly - Dr. Bates is truly nasty character, and when he gives a speech to the inquiry on Gulliver's alleged vices, it's quite clear that he's describing his own faults.<br /><br />The film makes use of beautiful, and fairly convincing CGI effects depicting the very diverse settings of the novel with great effect. The contrast of sizes is done in a very skillful way, and all of the worlds depicted in the story are convincing in their own way. The cinematography (particularly that concerning the asylum) and the costumes are brilliantly done. The editing of the present with Lemuel's memories is a device which could be awkward, but works very well.<br /><br />The cast is truly wonderful; a veritable who's-who of British and American talent. Ted Danson gives an excellent, multi-layered performance as Gulliver, showing effectively his transformation from a person bewildered by his strange surroundings, to the lunatic state he was in when he reappears, to his rational, intellectual personality at the end. Most well-known for his work on sit-com, Danson shows that he's more than just Sam Malone with this wonderful serio-comic performance. Mary Steenburgen is effective as his wife, and James Fox is absolutely repulsive as Bates. The rest of the cast is made up mostly of cameos, with Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Warwick Davis, Kristin Scott Thomas, Geraldine Chaplin, Alfre Woodward, Edward Fox, and Sir John Gielgud being the most memorable - but even the smallest parts are very well-played.<br /><br />While not 100% faithful to the book, "Gulliver's Travels" is a triumph of story and images. It's not to be missed.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
There is only one racist joke in this Daffy Duck short, which is basically, when Daffy rides Black Beauty, it is a black woman. I can understand partly why this joke was included, as at the time few people did not know how rude it was to be racist and it wasn't even illegal to discriminate black people yet.<br /><br />Aside from this point, "A Coy Decoy" is basically a fun, interesting short where Daffy meets characters in books and does things in books. I liked this short quite a lot (despite the other reviewers on here). The way Daffy is so in love with the clockwork duck is vaguely disturbing, yet highly amusing at the same time. Porky is a nice edition to the episode, though it was not vital for him to be there. The wolf is an example of how people thought of wolves in those days as well, blood-thirsty, terrible animals, which of course they never really have been (unless they are very hungry). I also liked the style of animation used - and the theme of the episode.<br /><br />For people who are totally into Daffy Duck and for people who do not mind the occasional racist joke in cartoons, enjoy "A Coy Decoy"!<br /><br />Available on YouTube. | positive |
I understand that the budget was low on this film, but come on this is really terrible film-making. The script is just plain awful and that was the free part. The effects aren't bad, but this film plays out like a conventional R-rated movie with lame scares and cut-away violence rather than a no holds barred unrated gore-fest that was intentionally made for video. Who were these guys kidding? Like this would have been released in theaters.<br /><br />The acting is terrible. The editing, another free aspect of the film, is beyond amateur, and the plot, as I said before, leaves little to be desired. There's nothing original about the film. Gore fans, avoid this one. To the filmmakers: try for something original next time, or stop making movies all together. You're not good at it. People hate a trashy rehash, especially one of such low caliber. AVOID! It isn't even worth making fun of. | negative |
As a Turkish man now living in Sweden I must confess I often watch Scandinavian movies. Most if them I never understand. I think actors from Scandinavia work best in Hollywood. Last week I watched a film called "The Polish Wedding" together with a polish friend of mine and we both said it was the worst movie we ever watched. Unfortunately I was wrong this movie " House of Angels" is even worse. None of the actors can act, absolutely not the female so called star Helen Bergstrom. The plot is so silly nobody can believe it.I think the whole thing is a mess from the start. lots of bad acting except from Selldal and Wollter. Ahmed Sellam | negative |
I saw this film first in the Soviet Union and many erotic scenes were simply edited out by the censorship committee. But then, in Poland in 2000, I watched it in a complete form. And so what? The plot is incredibly unwise - 2 men survive the genetic catastrophe and find themselves on the planet full of feminist strong, straight and fundamentally severe ladies. The men now try to fight it and then the whole bunch of extremely silly clichés follow - sex-drive, constant masculine desire for sex, feminists who are shown like complete idiots (you may agree with them or not, but idiots certainly they are not), and so on. The performance even of the stellar Jerzy Stuhr is here wooden and strangely bad - he just pulls unfunny faces and repeats on saying phrases like "I am in the elevator with a nude chick and I haven't done anything to her!". This was intended to be a comedy, instead, it turned out to be a vapid farce, full of predictable jokes and below-the-waist innuendos. Do not waste your time on it - this is just bad. | negative |
does anyone think that this show actually helps some people, or does it only anger the people who watch it? when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat Roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat Roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity. | negative |
Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all. | negative |
This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished. | negative |
A fine story about following your dreams and actually taking a stab at Doing something about them when the chance strikes. Nothing was easy for Morris either-he had a family, job, job opps elsewheres, a mortgage, etc-it wasn't like he could just drop what he was doing and blithely hop on the greyhound to play AAA ball for 4 months. It took guts. I am glad that they showed his indecision, almost up 'til he got the callup to the majors.<br /><br />I can remember seeing him pitch against the Red Sox(I think...), it was a great story. Though Morris actually looks more like John Kruk or a Mills Watson than Quaid-that's okay. <br /><br />Quaid does a very good job playing the man, the teacher, coach and 'oldest rookie'.... As someone who is in the the same age group, I certainly can ID with his plight. You're not Quite too old to do what you had dreamed of as a kid, but it's getting there. You have to do it sooner than lator.<br /><br />Believably told, nicely edited, paced, acted, good to see the familiar faces of the late Royce Applegate, Brian Cox and Rachel Griffiths here.<br /><br />Good job all around, glad to see it hit.<br /><br />*** outta ****...who woulda thought that the Tampa Devil Rays woulda been the subject of such a good movie early on? | positive |
A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.<br /><br />Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway. | negative |
"Hollywood Cavalcade" is a mildly entertaining 1939 film starring two staples of the 20th Century Fox roster, Don Ameche and Alice Faye, and containing a couple of in jokes.<br /><br />The film concerns a Max Sennett type, Michael Connors (Ameche) who brings an actress to Hollywood, Molly Adair (Faye) and makes her a big silent comedienne, eventually moving her into more dramatic roles. He becomes extremely successful with her as his star. Obsessed with his work, he's absolutely shocked when she and her leading man (Alan Curtis) run off and get married. He's so shocked, he dumps her. She and her husband go off and continue to be more and more popular while Connors' studio starts losing money at an alarming rate. Before you know it, he's through. Molly wants to help and asks that Connors direct her next film.<br /><br />There's lots of Keystone Kop type footage, which is quite funny, and some fantastic slapstick by Buster Keaton, who is wonderful. The film also has a scene from "The Jazz Singer" when the talkies take over. The in-joke, of course, has to do with Rin Tin-Tin, for whom Zanuck used to write. In one scene, Rinny's trainer brings him in as a potential contract player for Connors' studio. Connors throws both of them out of his office. A few scenes later, Rin-Tin-Tin is shown to be #1 box office. The role of the famous German shepherd in this film is played by Rin Tin-Tin, Jr., daddy having passed away in Jean Harlow's arms in 1932, one month shy of his 14th birthday. Fortune smiled on him even at the end.<br /><br />Alice Faye is very pretty and does a fine job, as does Ameche, who turns in an energetic performance. J. Edward Bromberg and Stuart Erwin provide very good support.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film isn't quite sure what it is - history, comedy, romance, or drama. However, "Hollywood Cavalcade" is still quite watchable. | positive |
No, not really, but this is a very good film indeed, and is sadly a forgotten gem. Black and white suits the film.<br /><br />Straight forward formula, a guy had the plague and the authorities have to track down everyone he came in contact with before they die.<br /><br />Very well directed, and the acting is great. Richard Widmark as the male lead is good but is completely over shadowed in the acting stakes by Paul Douglas as the police captain, and Jack Palance (never better than this) and Zero Mostel as the baddies. Sadly Palance went on to play similar characters in some really second rate gangster or war movies. | positive |
I don't remember ever seeing this one before tonight, probably the title sounded so ordinary it kept passing me by. But it is a well crafted b Western, with an interestingly brooding storyline complimented by acting veering from the good to corny.<br /><br />Robert Mitchum slopes into wide open town looking for his wife and news of their daughter, and stays for a time as town-tamer. As usual the good business folk have mixed emotions - they want to get rid of the baddies but like the business they bring. It still applies: relax drink and gambling laws and encourage the industries but pretend to deplore the seedy effects it can have on ordinary people. What's fascinating about this film is Mitchum's cynically intense portrayal in going about cleaning the town of baddies, and the townsfolk's acceptance that his violent methods were the only ones. Favourite bit: the sudden demise of 2 of the baddies in the Red Dog saloon. The firing of the main saloon bordered on nasty, but it was an effective way to combat the spread of poison.<br /><br />Overall a very good film with its only fault tending to be a little hokeyness - not so good for Do-Gooders who would probably prefer a lifetime of negotiation with Evil rather than end it. | positive |
I went to the movie theater this afternoon expecting to be underwhelmed by Scoop. Happily, the film exceeded expectations, at least a little bit. It's nothing heavy, nothing deep -- and not anywhere as good as any number of real Allen masterpieces -- but it's also completely enjoyable as a light, bantering comedy. There's something kind of simple and sweet about it. "Cute" was the word I heard from people in the audience as they were walking out after the show. It doesn't feel like Allen set out to create a masterpiece here, it feels like he wanted to make a little comedy and have fun doing it. Compared to just about everything Hollywood is producing, Allen's stuff has a tendency to charm. Even the fluffy stuff. These days it's just refreshing to go to a movie made by an actual human being. | positive |
MY DINNER WITH JIMI is a glimpse at Howard Kaylan's giddy and vertiginous ride to fame with his 60's Folk-Rock band, The Turtles. The Turtles were kind of a 'second tier' act during the sixties, but the film clearly demonstrates that they could eat, drink, and party with the Titans of Hippie Culture. And, not only that, they had the musical chops to back it up. Many of the stellar acts of the era are seen as they interact with the band at work and at play. This provides my only complaint about the film. Almost from the beginning of the movie, one sees that it is nearly impossible to find actors who can convincingly impersonate such recognizable stars. Too often during the film, I felt that I was watching an engaging exhibition of phony wigs and mustaches. But, if you are a fan of the music of The Turtles, or The Swinging 60's, in general-this might be the film for you. And, don't forget to view The Extras. There is a very funny (and informative) bit by band members, Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan, about their disastrous experiences with managers and agents. | positive |
This movie bombed at the box office and in the voting here but I loved it. One measure of a movie's worth is how much of it you can still remember after 25 years. I won't bore you with a list but there are dozens of deeply comic scenes, also a good story and great casting. The inept robbers are a hoot. See it and judge if it ever gets on TCM. | positive |
Set in Japan, Ashura is the story of Demons taking over the earth. The premise is far more complicated, but the arching storyline should not be forgotten. Japan is in turmoil, with Demons occupying human form roaming the lands. Generally speaking Demons look and act like humans, but are evil. The Japanese word they use is not just demons, but rather the classical form of 'ogre' which is a mythological creature of some historic stature. We're talking about creatures that would appear more like gods than simple ugly child-eating monsters.<br /><br />However in human form all that remains is the green eyes and green teeth, which appear when put under any sort of stress. In order to save the world from Demons there are Demon-slayers. Trained and skilled warriors who can spot and defeat most every kind of demon, and who guard the passage-way between the realm of hell and that of the real world. These are the basic premises.<br /><br />The story begins with a festival in a local town. Amid these festivities, 3 men ride in, dressed in all black, seemingly intent on doing harm. The villagers run, excepting those which are demonic in nature, who turn green-eyed and try to kill them. The Demon-Slayers end up killing off the majority of the demons. From here the story gets interesting. The whole essence of the story begins when at the gate to hell a fortune-telling demon appears before the 3 gate-keepers, revealing the arrival of Ashura. With it, comes the end of the reign of man, and begins the reign of demons. Ashura however requires some form of birthing process, the first step of which occurred during the opening battle, but which won't be revealed to you until you see the film. The 3 demon-slayers are a wise old man, a powerful yet unprincipled man, and a skilled and compassionate warrior. Immediately you can see the split between them, the old man wanting to stop the demons, the powerful one wanting to bend them to his increasing ego maniacal wishes and the third looking to stop the second. Along the way he meets a woman who he begins to take fancy to, and believes himself to have a special relationship with. She in turn is a brigand who is good-natured, sought after by authorities. When the two finally meet face to face, he places his hand on her shoulder, and suddenly she is scathed by a mark on her shoulder. Needless to say, the mark is not a good sign. What ensues is a battle for earth, a battle between both good and evil, as it should be, but also between good and good itself.<br /><br />The point for me of this film became something other than what I thought it would. I came in thinking it would either be a fast-paced action style film with demons, or a horror film with macabre evil and foul creatures the likes of which would be seen in Ringu and Ju-on. I was however mistaken in the best possible way. The story it seemed to me is an adaptation of a very old Japanese play, and it plays itself out as such, combining the essentially action driven adrenaline scenes with a great concept, an amazing narrative, and a style which makes you compelled to think rather than just sit wallowing in gore. Many scenes are painted with luxurious dialogue between two characters the likes of which will never be seen in a Hollywood film. It becomes a practically theatrical experience which takes your breath away.<br /><br />The film makes use of some immaculate scenery and camera-work comparable to many great Samurai films of our days, but adding to it a well-thought and classical plot. With great acting, great music, and thoroughly stunning scenes, its a must watch in my book.<br /><br />That being said, it does need the disclaimer that it is not for everyone. Its not cheap thrills horror, its not balls to the wall action. Its a horror style play thats been filmed. It has very much to say and takes the time to do so, flying in the face of the conventional one-liners. Like Japanese plays, the exchanges between the characters can last for many minutes before they come together for a quick yet marvelous battle scene. If you can enjoy such a thing, this is a masterpiece. If your idea of a good film is slasher flicks with little plot and excessive nudity, then you can easily watch something else.<br /><br />Overall, this film to me is a unique and amazing one, which keeps you riveted and amused. it has good writing, good acting, and good direction. It is all in all a solidly great film. | positive |
I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that "inspired" it was still big on the charts when the film was released!<br /><br />Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal "worst" list. <br /><br />Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill! | negative |
I was curious to know how critics responded to this rousing, inspiring film, so I went to Rotten Tomatoes and was dismayed to discover that the pompous peanut gallery that is our nation's film critics had given the film an average 43% (or "Rotten") rating.<br /><br />All I can say is, if this movie doesn't move you, you have no heart. (It's interesting to note that the same film on the same website got a 74% rating from viewers).<br /><br />Not that the opinion of critics is all THAT important to me. After all, I can't think of a more useless, overpaid profession. Some schmo gets paid to go to the movies (what a tough life) and does the same thing everyone else on the planet does: forms an opinion. But these chumps have a way of coming across like their opinion somehow matters more than yours, and even worse, they love to hate.<br /><br />I'll grant you that this movie is old fashioned (well, except for the f-bombs), syrupy, and a little predictable... after all, you know right from the beginning that Cuba Gooding Jr., portraying real-life Navy hero Carl Brashear, is going to triumph (eventually) at every turn simply by the way he comes across: determined and plucky; strong-willed and optimistic.<br /><br />But his performance and that of De Niro (as Billy Sunday, a composite character of several real-life people) are so strong, so inspiring, that you'll be on your feet cheering many of the film's scenes, especially the courtroom climax. You'd have to be a real stick in the mud not to be moved by these scenes. Like our nation's film critics. Michael Rappaport is excellent as well as a sweet-natured, stuttering diving student that befriends Gooding's Brashear. If anyone has seen "Higher Learning", this character totally redeems that character.<br /><br />Anyway, this confirms what I've always felt: don't listen to critics. See this movie and get inspired. | positive |
I loved the episode but seems to me there should have been some quick reference to the secretary getting punished for effectively being an accomplice after the fact. While I like when a episode of Columbo has an unpredictable twist like this one, its resolution should be part of the conclusion of the episode, along with the uncovering of the murderer.<br /><br />The interplay between Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon is priceless. At one point, Gordon, playing a famous writer, makes some comment about being flattered by the famous Lt. Columbo, making a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the detective's real life fame as a crime-solver. This is one of the best of many great Columbo installments. | positive |
Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs! | negative |
I thought this was one of those really great films to see with a bunch of close friends. I laughed and cried and laughed and cried at the same time. It was just really touching. Although not a new concept this was a very well made film. | positive |
Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film | negative |
Ironically for a play unavailable on film or video for so long, ARMS AND THE MAN has remained fairly constantly available on stage over the years since its debut in 1894 - in no small part because it has aged so well as a solid satire on the nature of heroism and the business of war. Whenever the world sinks into strife, ARMS AND THE MAN seems to soar as ever more timely and relevant.<br /><br />This is the play which Oscar Strauss converted (leaving out most of Shaw's best ideas) into the successful operetta, THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER (when Hollywood got to *that,* they left out the last vestiges of Shaw rather than pay him for the rights - he was, by then, an Oscar winner in his own right). While the best of Shaw has always been his ideas and his dialogue rather than his bare plots, in ARMS AND THE MAN, the plot sparkles as well and the master manages happy endings for all concerned. <br /><br />Young Raina (Helena Bonham Carter), daughter of an officer and the wealthiest man in her town, is betrothed to a dashing officer in the Bulgarian cavalry and all seems well until a bedraggled Swiss mercenary (Pip Torrens) from the other side climbs up her drainpipe fleeing from the battle where his army has been routed. As usual in a Shaw satire, nothing is as it first appears and societal conventions are stood on their head in the light of simple - and not so simple reason. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys," just people of a variety of classes getting by on the best of their wits - just like life only better - and naturally with Shaw, the wit is finely honed from all concerned.<br /><br />The early (1932) motion picture version (from Shaw's own screenplay) of this most traditional and traditionally funny of Shaw's stage satires, and one of his first to make a real hit on this side of the Atlantic, has long been among the missing. Shaw didn't sell the screen-rights to his plays - only licensed them for 5 year periods, and it appeared that with rapidly evolving sound technology making 1932 films look primitive only a few years later, Shaw did not renew the license to show it. Consequently, we're immensely in the BBC's debt for finally putting out their 1987 broadcast version in a DVD box with nine other sparkling plays. (Somewhat sadly, PYGMALION, that many view as Shaw's best, comes off least well on this set in a production with Lynn Redgrave and James Villiers.)<br /><br />Even paired, as it is on its DVD, with the less impressive one act, A MAN OF DESTINY, ARMS AND THE MAN makes for a real treasure.<br /><br />Helena Bonham Carter went on, after cutting her teeth on televised roles like this, to a major film career that will bring many viewers to this early role. They should not be disappointed, for Ms. Carter gives a performance in line with the layered innocence audiences have come to expect from her, but under James Cellan Jones' somewhat pedestrian direction (and despite the BBC's uniformly beautiful and well observed physical production), the role's mischievous fire (and her outrage at being underestimated in the last act) is banked at only about 80% of it's potential. <br /><br />Much the same can be said of the real star of the piece, Pip Torrens, as Bluntschli the "Switzer." It's a fine, appealing performance, but doesn't go for the physical comedy implicit in the early scene where the young soldier can barely stay awake despite his mortal peril.<br /><br />These reservations notwithstanding, this is a solid production of a wonderful play transferred to the small screen with aplomb. It deserves to be seen widely and, ideally, prompt an even livelier big screen remake with the style and zest of the recent remake of Wilde's AN IDEAL HUSBAND. Virtually *any* ARMS AND THE MAN is to be cherished, and with a lot of luck perhaps we'll even eventually get to see the original 1932 version. 'Till one or the other surfaces, this production will please anyone who loves good Shaw. | positive |
This movie has it all, action, fighting, dancing, bull riding, music, pretty girls. This movie is an authenic look at middle America. Believe me, I was there in 1980. Lots of oil money, lots of women, and lots of honky tonks. Too bad they are all gone now. The movie is essentially just another boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, but it is redeemed by the actors and the music. There is absolutely no movie with any better music that this movie, and that includes American Graffiti. It is a movie I watch over and over again and never get tired of it. Every time I watch it, I am young again, and it is time to go out honky tonking. The only reason I only gave it a 9 is because you cannot rate a movie zero, I do not feel you should rate one 10. | positive |
*** Possable spoiler but probably not ***<br /><br />The game is called donkey kong but donkey kong is not even in it<br /><br />anymore! Diddy is gone aswell!<br /><br />The 1st Donkey Kong Country was one of my two all time favorite<br /><br />Super Nintendo games. (The other being Super Mario World)<br /><br />The 2nd Donkey Kong at least had diddy kong and good levels,<br /><br />although it felt more like a game based on pirates at times.<br /><br />However this one is the worst of the lot! It does not have the feel of<br /><br />the original or 2nd, The enemy's look stupid and the levels are<br /><br />even worse. It does not look realistic anymore! I did not enjoy his game unlike the last two, the first had great<br /><br />background music and the 2nd was not bad but the music in this<br /><br />game is horrible!<br /><br />It happens a lot these days that movies, shows and sometimes<br /><br />video games that start out fantastic, end up with it being ruined by<br /><br />a stupid sequel! I am sad to say I feel that donkey kong as a saga is not as good<br /><br />now that it has Donkey Kong 3!<br /><br />They should have left it at the original or MAYBE the 2nd one. | negative |
I thoroughly enjoyed Gabrielle Burton's story of a mysterious gift and how it effects it recipients in the past and present. The talented Burton family of five film-making sisters, an author mother, and dancing dad offer a charming plot, respectfully edited for clarity , memorably chosen songs, and a beautifully filmed piece that made me laugh and cry as the characters' vulnerablility invited me into their predicamant. There was a farce-like attitude about this work with touching undertones of innocent wonder. Fanatastic | positive |
A cranky police detective suspects a French duke of being the infamous thief ARSÈNE LUPIN.<br /><br />John & Lionel Barrymore costarred together for the first time in a motion picture in this intriguing crime drama. Alike and yet so different, they are the perfect counterpoint to each other. John plays his role with suave sophistication (when not in disguise) and Lionel is earthy & common in his portrayal, each obviously having a wonderful time trying to out act the other. Helped by a generous script, the outcome is pretty much a draw, with the viewer the clear winner.<br /><br />Although upstaged by the two male stars, Karen Morley is intriguing as the mystery woman John finds naked in his bed. Tully Marshall gives a colorful performance as a silly nobleman with much to lose to the master criminal. Henry Armetta & George Davis are very enjoyable as two seriously inept security guards. John Miljan provides a sturdy presence in his small role as the police prefect.<br /><br />Movie mavens will recognize an uncredited Mischa Auer as a guide in the Louvre during the climactic scene dealing with an attempted heist of the Mona Lisa. | positive |
This movie, without doubt is the best I have seen, and really shows what British talent can do. It's effects are exceedingly good considering the movie is set in the mid 18th Century, and all the grittiness and disgusting filth of England at the time, is captured very well. The character's are developed and fleshed out, from MaCleane's whoring antics to his development into highwayman and exhibitionary 'The Gentleman Highwayman' contrast well with Robert Carlyle, who's cynicism and honour show that you can love a thief and a criminal cos I quote: 'He's got more honour in his little finger, than any of you fat bastards!'<br /><br />Not referring to you of course! But it has arguably the most stirring and emotionally charged scene ever witnessed in a movie, but you'll just have to see it to find out, suffice to say that it involves rope round your neck.<br /><br /> | positive |
Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually. | positive |
This film concerns a very young girl, Cassie, (Melissa Sagemiller) who leaves her family and heads off to become a college freshman. One night Cassie and her friends decide to go to a wild party with plenty of drinking and dancing and Cassie is riding with her boyfriend who she likes but never told him she loved him. As Cassie was driving, a car was stopped in the middle of the road and she was unable to avoid an accident and as a result there is a bloody loss of lives along with her boyfriend. Cassie becomes very emotionally upset and has nightmares which cause her to have hallucinations about her boyfriend coming back to life and encounters men trying to murder her and she is struggling to find out who her real friends are, who wants her dead and will she survive this entire horror ordeal. Cassie dreams she is being made love to by her boyfriend after he died and finds another guy in her bed and is told she was asking him to make love. This is a way out film, and not very good at all. | negative |
The movie begins almost achingly slowly, a "romance" (yawn) that seems to ramble off course (all part of the plan...) Then, roughly one hour into this solemn movie is The Feast. It's worth paying attention to that first hour. The Feast is still solemn, but humorous. Suddenly, the withdrawn and slightly petty characters come to life, and everyone (you AND the characters) leave feeling enriched by the experience.<br /><br />Women will love this. Christians of all sorts will enjoy the profound faith demonstrated by the characters. Not my favorite movie of all time - no dinosaurs OR laser beams, after all - but definitely a movie I am happy to have seen. Not to be missed.<br /><br />Jim | positive |
The name of Bad Company's greatest hits album is called "10 From 6". You could have just turned up this album and cut the sound on this movie. Most of the songs played in the movie were from this album. I guess oldsters during the 1970s were probably tired of all the period pieces made then about the 1930s and 1940s. That's how I feel about movies made about the 1970s. The characters in the movie looked like they were auditioning for Danny Terrio. Why is it that movies have to exaggerate the 1970s. The only good period piece I liked was "Freaks and Geeks". They cut that television show. It was exactly like things were in high school when I was there back circa 1980. I was old enough to remember the 70s and no small town was like this. It was totally youth dominated. There were no reactionaries talking about the hippies and about the inner city of Philly. That was more the 70s that I remember as a kid. This movie was very dull and cheesy. At times, I was falling asleep. I don't know why an actor who was acting during the 70s, appeared in this one. He was probably trying to lend it some credibility. Walken didn't even show up until the second half. I guess the only true thing about the movie was the "baby boomers" were/are a spoiled lot. All the kids in the movie were spoiled brats. I don't know what they had against their father. | negative |
Slasher sequel (fourth SLUMBER PART MASSACRE film) concerns a group of nubile cheerleaders stranded in a mountainous cabin in the snow, being offed by a deranged killer. Typical slasher elements for hardcore slasher fans, gore, wonderfully gratuitous female nudity, no plot. Though it wears out its welcome eventually, even at its short length.<br /><br />Original star Brinke Stevens makes a cameo, which only seems to be there for the sake of including her in the movie. | negative |
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information. | negative |
(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)<br /><br />People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.<br /><br />I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.<br /><br />"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.<br /><br />The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.<br /><br />Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.<br /><br />Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.<br /><br />After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh? <br /><br />The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.<br /><br />For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/ | negative |
I say "flick" because this doesn't deserve the appellation "movie", and certainly not "film". I regret paying for the rental, and although I've never walked out on a movie before, this would have been it, had I seen it in a theatre. A society living underground in the future (oooh, THAT'S original), lots of burning barrel drums, unexplained ambient light shining through windows, an ungrateful woman and her shock-muted son...the list goes on and on. C. Thomas Howell affects the husky voice of the stereotypical loner; you know like Eastwood's been done to death. He needs special sunglasses to remember his wife and child, yet in the flashbacks, he's the same age! Talk about a poor memory! I stared incredulously when the little boy Abe randomly pushes a code into a door and it opens! No tension, pithy religious (what religion?) under/overtones...saddest of all: I expected better from Roddy Piper;<br /><br />Quite possibly the worst movie experience in my life. | negative |
I think this is a lovely family movie. There are plenty of hilarious scenes and heart-warming moments to be had throughout the movie. The actors are great and the effects well executed throughout. Danny Glover plays George Knox who manages the terrible baseball team 'The Angels' and is great throughout the film. Also fantastic are the young actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Milton Davis Jr. Christopher Lloyd is good as Al 'The Angel' and the effects are great in this top notch Disney movie. A touching and heart-warming movie which everyone should enjoy. | positive |
What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other. | negative |
Awlright, damn it, the MooCow will grudgingly admit the truth: I kinda' like this cheap, cheesy 70's parody. The idea that vast hordes of killer tomatoes are destroying the US is a great idea, and in spite of itself, the moovie does provide some decent chuckles, moostly the sight of terrified extras running away from large, obviously fake tomatoes. This film, along with The Kentucky Fried Moovie, is one of the earlier attempts at spoofs, which became so popular in the 80's & 90's, thanks largely to Airplane!. This one, like moost spoofs, is pretty poor. Many attempts at humor are dismal failures, and will induce much groaning. But thanks to the ravenous tomatoes hordes, the obnoxious "Puberty Love" song, and the awesome helicopter crash scene, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes does provide some goods, though largely for the wrong reasons. There are sooooo many things wrong with this film...and so right, it's hard to explain. Enough people must also have enjoyed it as the Tomatoes made a comeback in 2 moore films, and a cartoon series!! Large chunks of time spent away from the tomatoes are pretty dull. And dig those 70's clothes, dude!! ;=8) This tomato is seedy and cheesy, but worth a chuckle or two; the MooCow says grab a pizza and pop in the Tomatoes!! : | negative |
By now you've probably heard a bit about the new Disney dub of Miyazaki's classic film, Laputa: Castle In The Sky. During late summer of 1998, Disney released "Kiki's Delivery Service" on video which included a preview of the Laputa dub saying it was due out in "1999". It's obviously way past that year now, but the dub has been finally completed. And it's not "Laputa: Castle In The Sky", just "Castle In The Sky" for the dub, since Laputa is not such a nice word in Spanish (even though they use the word Laputa many times throughout the dub). You've also probably heard that world renowned composer, Joe Hisaishi, who scored the movie originally, went back to rescore the excellent music with new arrangements. Laputa came out before My Neighbor Totoro and after Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, which began Studio Ghibli and it's long string of hits. And in my opinion, I think it's one of Miyazaki's best films with a powerful lesson tuckered inside this two hour and four minute gem. Laputa: Castle in the Sky is a film for all ages and I urge everyone to see it.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with Castle in the Sky's story, it begins right at the start and doesn't stop for the next two hours. The storytelling is so flawless and masterfully crafted, you see Miyazaki's true vision. And believe me, it's one fantastic one. The film begins with Sheeta, a girl with one helluva past as she is being held captive by the government on an airship. Sheeta holds the key to Laputa, the castle in the sky and a long lost civilization. The key to Laputa is a sacred pendant she has which is sought by many, namely the government, the military and the air pirate group, the Dola gang (who Sheeta and Pazu later befriend). Soon, the pirates attack the ship and she escapes during the raid. She falls a few thousand feet, but the fall is soft and thanks to her pendant. As she floats down from the sky, Pazu, an orphan boy who survives by working in the mines, sees Sheeta and catches her. The two become fast friends, but thanks to her pendant, the two get caught up in one huge thrill ride as the Dola gang and government try to capture Sheeta. One action sequence after another, we learn all of the character's motives and identities as we build to the emotional and action packed climax which will surely please all with it's fantastic animation and wonderful dialogue. Plus somewhat twisty surprise. I think this film is simply remarkable and does hold for the two hour and four minute run time. The story is wonderful, as we peak into Hayao Miyazaki's animation which has no limits. The setting of the film is a combo of many time periods. It does seem to take place at the end of the 1800s, but it is some alternante universe which has advanced technology and weapons. Laputa is also surprisingly a funny film. The film has tons of hilarious moments, almost equal to the drama and action the film holds. I think the funniest part is a fight scene where Pazu's boss faces off against a pirate, and soon after a riot breaks out. It's funny as we see the men compare their strength and the music fits right in with it perfectly.<br /><br />Now let's talk about how the dub rates. An excellent cast give some great performances to bring these characters to life. Teen heartthrob James Van Der Beek plays the hero Pazu, who has a much more mature voice then in the Japanese version, where in the original he sounded more childlike. Either way, I think his voice is a nice fit with Pazu. Anna Paquin, the young Oscar winner from "The Piano", plays Sheeta. This is also a nice performance, but the voice is a bit uneven, she doesn't stay true to one accent. At times she sounds as American as apple pie, but at other times she sounds like someone from New Zealand. The performance I most enjoyed however was of Coris Leachman, who played Mama Dola. Not only is this an excellent performance, but the voice and emotion she gives the character really brings it to life. If there was ever a live action Laputa movie (G-d forbid), she would be the one to play her, you can just imagine her in the role (well, somewhat). Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill is Muska, and this is another top rate Hamill performance. You may be familiar with Hamill from a long line of voice work after he did the original Star Wars movies, but he renders Muska to full evil. His voice sounds like his regular voice and mix of the Joker, who he played for many episodes on the animated Batman series. Rounding out the cast is voice character actor Jim Cummings, who does a great, gruff job as the general and Andy Dick and Mandy Patakin as members of the Dola gang.<br /><br />Now let me talk about what really makes this dub special, Joe Hisaishi's newly arranged music! For those who have never heard of him, Mr. Hisaishi does the music and like all of Miyazaki's films, the music is very memorable. Each of his scores has it's own personas which fits the particular film perfectly. Now, these new arrangements he has done are more "American like", which I think was the goal of the new recordings. Don't worry, the classic tunes of the Japanese version are still here in great form. The score, to me, sounds to be arranged like this is a Hollywood blockbuster. It has more power, it has more emphasis, it's clearer and deeper. The film's prologue, the first seconds where we are introduced to the airships, has some new music (I am not sure, but I believe when we first saw the ships there was no music at all). But a majority of the music has new backdrops and more background music to enjoy. Things seem very enhanced. In a powerful scene, the music is more stronger then in the original versions. In a calm scene, it's more calmer. Overall, I think many of you will be pleased with the new arrangements an mixes, I highly did myself, and personally think it helps improve the film. I prefer the new score over the old one, and I hope Disney will release or license the music rights to a full blown soundtrack.<br /><br />Another plus side to the dub is that the story remains faithful, and much of the original Japanese lines are intact. In Kiki, I'm sure a few lines where changed, and this is the same way, lines have been changed. But a majority are close or exactly the original lines and dialogue Miyazaki has written. I was afraid some excellent lines would be butchered, but they were there intact. Some new lines have been added as well which help out. But I am not sure whether to consider this a good thing or a bad thing, Disney DID NOT translate the ending song, it was in Japanese. I was mortified when they did completely new songs for the Kiki dub, but with this version it's the original song... in Japanese. So I guess it's good it's still the original, but bad since a majority of people seeing this dub speak English.<br /><br />There is a big down side to this dub, and it deals with how the voices match the character's lips. Of course in any dub it won't be perfect, but I think in Kiki and Mononoke the dubbing of lines to match were much better executed (and Disney had a little bit more time with this one...). Some of the time everything matches perfect, some of the time it doesn't completley match, and in a rare case, someone says something and the lips don't move at all (there's a scene where Sheeta chuckles and her mouth doesn't move one bit).<br /><br />As far as things about the film itself, these are my thoughts. I thought the most amazing part of Laputa was the animation. From the opening sequence to the ending, the animation is so lush and detailed, you just have to watch in awe. You see the true nature of each character, true detail to their face with extreme close ups and action. You have to give a ton of credit for the effort that these animators put into this film. Everything is so well done and beautifully hand drawn, it's like a moving piece of art. And to think, this was done in the mid 1980's. The animation is quite different from Disney, Ghibli has it's own distinctive flare which is very different, but very good. And after all these years, the colors look as vibrant as ever. Laputa also has tons of action sequences, lots of plane dogfights plus a few on ground. These sequences are so well done and so intriguing, it's scary that they are comparable to a big budget action film. And the finale is just something you MUST see. The sound effects are pure and classic and fit explosions, guns firing and everything else well. And like all Miyazaki films, each one focuses on a different theme (i.g. Kiki: Confidence). This one has a great a lesson on greed and power. People don't realize how greed can take over you, and how having too much power isn't good. People are obsessed with power, and are greedy, and the main villian, Muska, greatly shows this.<br /><br />All in all, Laputa: Castle In The Sky was a great film to begin with, and is now improved for the most part. I am glad a more mainstream audience now have the chance to see this classic animated film in all it's glory. With a great voice cast who put a lot into the film with the excellent redone musical score from Joe Hisaishi, Disney has done a nice job on this dub and is quite worthy. Though I think the voices matched the mouths better in the Kiki and Princess Mononoke Disney dubs, Castle In The Sky is still a great dub and is worth the long delays because now more can expierence a fantastic film. | positive |
In a far away Galaxy is a planet called Ceta. It's native people worship cats. But the dog people wage war upon these feline loving people and they have no choice but to go to Earth and grind people up for food. This is one of the stupidest f#@k!ng ideas for a movie I've seen. Leave it to Ted Mikels to make a movie more incompetent than the already low standard he set in previous films. It's like he enjoying playing in a celluloid game of Limbo. How low can he go? The only losers in the scenario are US the viewer. Mr. Mikels and his silly little handlebar mustache actually has people who STILL buy this crap.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Ted Mikels; the Story behind the Making of (9 and a half minutes); 17 minutes, 15 seconds of Behind the scenes footage; Ted Mikels filmography; and Trailers for "The Worm Eaters" "Girl in Gold Boots", "the Doll Squad", "Ten Violent Women" (featuring nudity), "Blood Orgy of the She Devils", & "the Corpse Grinders" | negative |
Wonderful songs, sprightly animation and authentic live action make this a classic adaptation of a classic tale. A nice British feel which sets it apart and above from the standard, saccharine sweet Disney cartoons. | positive |
I saw this movie a million years (5 years to be exact) ago for the first the time. In the light of recent events with the Australian woman Schapelle Corby being imprisoned in Indonesia for so called smuggling pot, I decided to watch this movie again. I excepted to cry my heart out, 'cause I'm sucker for hot girls in need (just read my review of 'the stalking of Laurie Show'). Some moist escaped my eyes, but it were hardly buckets filled with tears. Why? Not because the two heroines weren't utterly adoring and helpless, not because the movie wasn't heartbreaking at the sight of these two kids in the prime of their live locked up in almost inhuman conditions. Why then? Why did I not cry? I wanted to cry! When I rent a movie like this, I except to be moved, to sob like there's no tomorrow, to feel miserable and like it. This movie was simply too short to do this. It was just like the script was reduced to the main plot elements, and while doing this the psychological aspect was thrown aside. Clare Danes and Kate Beckinsale did an excellent job portraying the emotions of the two friends, but this movie just screamed for more footage of these girls in their depressing (and oppressing) surroundings. The mental journey is missing here for some reason. You only get to see the key moments of it (which are very touching, I admit), probably because of bad editing. Sometimes I felt these girls were walking around in a postcard. The relationship with the family members could also have used a bit more attention. What's up with the relationships between the girls and the parents (especially between Alice and her dad)? You catch a glimpse of it, but the film doesn't quite offer the whole picture, sadly enough.<br /><br />Nonetheless this was a great movie, and at the end I even had to bite my lip a bit. But I guess this has more to do with the acting skills (and the looks) of the actresses (and the music) then with the merit of the director. To be honest, I hardly knew who Kate Beckinsale was before I watched this movie (again). Now, I am a fan! Great movie, as long as you don't expect it to be classic cinema. | positive |
I saw a trailer for this on Afro Promo, the collection of movie trailers for movies featuring African-Americans. It looked like what it is; a highly tendentious "wacky" comedy in which an uptight black man realizes that his son is gay. It would seem that Redd Foxx's (RF) wife has left him for his brother, who works with him at "the store" back in Phoenix. He has taken the bus to visit his son Norman is Los Angeles.<br /><br />So as RF arrives, Norman, wearing nothing but powder-blue bikini shorts, gets out of his waterbed to answer the door. Trying to buy time by making his elderly father take the stairs to what appears to be the 60th floor, Norman tries to wake his lover, who steadfastly refuses to budge. It was just to the point where I wrote "WHY won't he wake up?" when suddenly he does, and me and my friend's jaws dropped for the first of many times as we are presented with our first glimpse of the blue-eyed, swirl-hairdoed Garson, Norman's white live-in lover, who just "had the most faaaaaabulous dream
" Garson is a flaming queen of a type that can ONLY be imagined as emerging from 1976 L.A. He has dresses and a purse and big clunky jewelry, and seems to have modeled both his look and persona on Carol Brady from The Brady Bunch.<br /><br />Norman orders his lover to find somewhere else to stay during his father's visit. Garson goes to stay with Waylon Flowers, and Madam answers the phone when Norman calls. <br /><br />So RF attempts to reach his wife in Mexico. While he is on the phone, Garson comes in to pack his dress and RF confronts him. With a burst of 70s soul music meant to evoke his dawning revelation (but sounding more like we're about to hear a very special track by The Emotions), he realizes that his son is gay.<br /><br />His first impulse is "I'll kill him. I'll kill him." Then RF goes on a long walk, wherein he cycles through all of the thoughts a confused parent might have, such as "maybe we toilet trained him too soon." His thoughts are all triggered by something he sees on his walk, for instance a burly truck driver appearing just as he is contemplating what makes a real man. Surprisingly, he goes to a bookstore and buys about eight books on homosexuality. This, it must be said, is about eight more books on homosexuality than MY parents bought. He then goes straight to a park bench and reads them all! <br /><br />RF then hires Audrey, a six-foot Amazon prostitute (in this amazing fur thing) played by Tamara Dobson of Cleopatra Jones. He hired her for Norman to try out heterosexuality, but this pisses Norman and he storms out to go stay with his friend Melody.<br /><br />Then Garson comes over and offers to take RF out for the night. He commiserates over the loss of RF's wife, and tells the tale of his own mother, who harbors an irrational prejudice against Pilippinos because "she was molested at a luau." They attend a long featured performance of Wayon and Madam, which culminates in Madam violently bashing her head against the piano until her hair comes loose. Once more, mouths were agape.<br /><br />So it seems that, wouldn't ya just know it, RF and Garson have a wonderful evening together! You see, staid, traditional older black men just have to see the crappy, highly-effeminate entertainment of mega-queens in order to come around to ALL the gay world has to offer! It's really JUST that simple! This still does not prevent RF from yelling "Rape!" when Garson wakes him from a bad dream. It ends less predictably than you'd think.<br /><br />There was so much that was just off. WHAT is the basis of Norman and Garson 's relationship? They don't seem to have ANY rapport, and Norman has no qualms whatsoever about kicking Garson out, and even when he comes around to stand up for himself, he never defends Garson or talks about their relationship. There were some kind of sweetly quaint touches like RF going to buy all those books on homosexuality-and sitting right down on the park bench to read them! I like the idea that a parent would actually try to find something out about homosexuality, rather than just run off to get drunk or commiserate with his friends.<br /><br />Other than that, it's kind of just what it seems like: a little relic of a bygone era, an era in which some gay people thought that if uptight straight people just sat down and watched a drag marionette performance, we could all learn to love and understand one another! And because of the whole naiveté of this thing, the extreme stereotypes and message-laden dialogue just come off as charmingly outdated, and provide a great deal of grist for discussion on how things have changed for gays in the past 30 years. I guess the only thing that seems offensive is the idea that gays' female friends are desperately in love with them, and are willing to get them drunk in order to sleep with, and by extension convert, them.<br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above. | positive |
I have just seen Today You Die. It is bad, almost very bad.<br /><br />1) The direction and editing are awful, just awful. Almost made me turn off the movie, Fauntleroy (the director) has no idea what he is doing, he seems to be filming things at random and some scenes don't make sense at all. Also, I hate it when the same scene is used again in the same movie, in this movie some scenes were used 3 or 4 times. Pretty bad.<br /><br />2) The dialogue is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I like the fact that they wanted to make Seagal's character and Treach's character seem like they were in a similar relationship to the characters in Lethal Weapon, but it did not work simply because some of the dialogue DID NOT MAKE SENSE, and I speak English very well, it's not that I did not understand the words, it was the fact that the jokes and dialogue lines had no meaning whatsoever.<br /><br />3) The script is pretty bad. Why do they always try to complicate DTV action movies? Seagal's wife in the movie has psychic abilities, why? Is it useful to the movie? NO. Seagal eliminates a whole bunch of people who work for the guy who betrayed him and he knows these people without having ever met them in the movie. STUPID. The story sometimes goes off track and the jumps back without any reason. The story is messy and pointless sometimes. They should have kept it simple and it would have worked.<br /><br />4) In some of the action scenes it is not Seagal, it is his stunt double. You can tell because they only film him from behind and never show his face. He also beats the guys with movie martial arts, not real ones like the aikido Steven knows. The stunt double uses cheesy kicks and punches.<br /><br />5) Steven is good in the movie. 90-95% of the lines are said with his real voice. The rest is dubbing but it is not that bad. This was good. Also Steven seems to be enjoying himself in the movie and is more into the action that he was in Submerged. He likes Treach as a partner; at least he does not seem to dislike him. Also, he seems to have been in better shape than in some of his recent movies. I hate the fact that he wears clothes to hide his body, but in the same clothes that he wears on the DVD cover he looks more than OK and he should have wore those clothes for most of the movie not the stupid long leather coat.<br /><br />I really think that Seagal was willing to make a good movie. The fact that he came late and took off early from the set ON TWO MOVIES directed by Fauntleroy does not look like a coincidence to me. I think he realized that the crew were amateurs or only in it for a quick buck and he did not give a damn anymore.<br /><br />In the hands of a better company and crew this might have been a damn good action movie for Seagal. Something like Out for Justice or Above the Law. I honestly believe that. But the people who made the movie are not very good at their jobs or they did not have enough money to do the job properly. Too bad since I liked Steven in the movie and Treach was cool (Ice Cool ) too, but the rest was bad. Hey, at least this gives me hope for Black Dawn and Shadows of the past. I think that Mercenary might be just as badly handled. But hey, Steven seemed to be back into the same mood he was in while making his better movies and at least THAT is reason enough to watch the movie.<br /><br />I liked it, but it could have been SO much better. 4/10 | negative |
Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.<br /><br />However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film. <br /><br />Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.<br /><br />There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.<br /><br />Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father ("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.<br /><br />This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM. | positive |
Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.<br /><br />As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.<br /><br />I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.<br /><br />I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.<br /><br />Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.<br /><br />I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :) | negative |
This movie was fun! Especially if your between 8 and 15. Frankie Muniz and Amanda Bynes make a believable team of 8th graders getting back at an adult who really deserves it. Paul Giamatti makes a great adult who you really want to 'get'. My 13 year old daughter and her friend loved it. Parents: No really bad words or any sex to worry about. Recommend it for the 'right' crowd. AP | positive |
It is extremely rare that I see a movie from 1955 that I don't love. Noir, JDs, Sci-fi, Drive-Ins; I dig it all the most. Robert Aldrich is a director who has done plenty of excellent work, and most of this cast has fine performances under their belt. So what went wrong?<br /><br />When I used to work in the Independent Film world, we used to talk about something called "actors' movies." Actors' movies are movies that are unwatchable to anyone but other actors. Actors like "actors' movies" because they get to see ACTing - which is to say completely over-the-top melodrama. Actors love to be given the chance to totally let loose "give it all they've got" and they get a great satisfaction from watching other actors do so. In many interviews with actors they say "he was a great director, he never interfered with me in any way." Actually that's the opposite of good directing, because the whole POINT of having a director on the set is to keep the actors from making fools of themselves (which, given the chance, they will always do).<br /><br />Apparently Robert Aldrich forgot that on this project. Or maybe he was ill. Or maybe he thought there was no hope for saving the script in the first place, so what the heck? Whatever the case, here is an example of a lesser-known movie that is best forgotten. The characters gesticulate, pontificate and generally ham it up all the way through. One thing I can say is realistic: it's set in Hollywood and everyone acts like their petty problems are the most important thing in the world. Doesn't make it fun to watch, but it is realistic. What isn't realistic is that a producer so desperate to keep his star under contract is going to go out of his way to antagonize him in almost every conceivable way - including requiring him to engage in illegal activity. But this and other plot contradictions merely carry along the melodrama, increasing the opportunity for hand-wringing and shouted accusations. <br /><br />I did manage to get to the end of this film, which makes it no worse than a "3" out of 10 in my book. But, why test your own endurance when there is so much else available to rent? | negative |
Man I loved Ocean's 11.<br /><br />Smart movie. All eleven characters were crucial to the heist as each had their own specialised skill that was necessary to pull of the grand finale.<br /><br />What on earth was Oceans 12? What was the purpose of the twelfth person? I assume it's supposed to be Zeta-Jones but she wasn't really a part of the 11 as she was trying to trip them up and working against them the whole film?? It was more like the story of Brad and Zeta-Jones' characters boring relationship with some bits from the original movie thrown in just to get some bums on seats to watch the movie.<br /><br />With O-11, the gang were always a step ahead of Benedict (Garcia). They were always able to outsmart him. What happened here? He catches up with them after a tip-off and suddenly they're all wusses? The whole movie is so that they can raise the money they stole plus interest to repay back Benedict for the heist they pulled on him 3 years earlier. So next movie they're going to develop courage and brains again and get him back for making them pay him back for the first heist? Puh-lease...<br /><br />This movie could have been achieved with just Brad Pitt, Zeta-Jones and 5 mins of Matt Damon for the switcheroo scene.<br /><br />Slow moving movie, not the energy of the first one. I tried hard to like it and I'm usually very easy to please but I'm really disappointed.<br /><br />SPOILER!!! The twist - the whole movie didn't need to have been made as the real heist was done before everything you just saw over the past 2 hours.<br /><br />END SPOILER.<br /><br />Wait until it comes on TV or if you're a fan of the original from 2001 please don't watch this. | negative |
As an native of Bolton, this film has obvious appeal for me. The location shots are fascinating and show a Bolton very much in transition - there are a number of scenes of apparent dereliction but this serves to show the town being rebuilt - and the idea that the old must make way for the new is right at the heart of this film. A slightly miscast James Mason leads an enjoyable ensemble in a story about a fuss over a herring that spirals into a full-blown generational conflict, then a pleasingly schmaltzy resolution. Though I'm a bit too young to remember it fully, the minutiae of Lancashire life in the 60s is all here: cashing up on a Friday, songs round the piano, the Sunday constitutional, good neighbourliness, the trepidations of courtship, the massive importance of self-respect, and I was pleased to see Naughton's funniest lines from the play left intact. There is no doubt that this film ought to be made available on DVD - it is well crafted and most performances are well realised. | positive |
I wasn't expecting much, and, to be honest, I didn't like this film the first time around but watching it again and I realised that it's kinda cool. Sure, it's a one joke film but it's a funny gag. <br /><br />Someone posted that it could be better written and it could be. I think this film had the potential to be a over-the-top My Cousin Vinny. But with a horror host instead of a lawyer. Sadly it's a wasted opportunity. With just a bit more writing it could be a classic. The kids are underused there's no reason why they should latch on to Elvira. Apart from the obvious reasons. It would have been great to see their relationship flourish. I know it's a comedy but it's little differences that separate the good films from the brilliant.<br /><br />Elvira herself is always fun and engaging. Not to mention flirty. Every time she smiles you will too. It's hard to knock a film when the main character is so charming. And it really is her charm, don't let her looks fool you into thinking that she's some sort of tart. Well she is. But she's a nice one. The sort of person you'd let look after your kids. Wouldn't let her cook for them, though...<br /><br />I'd recommend giving it a go. <br /><br />Just don't expect too much.<br /><br />She's more than just a great set of boobs. She's also an incredible pair of legs. | positive |
I couldn't even sit through the whole thing! This movie was a piece of crap! I had more fun watching "Dont' Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead"! It was just too painful to watch. Say, besides "Austin Powers", has Tom Arnold ever been in a hit movie? | negative |
For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.<br /><br />I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ("Who Goes There") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change "always a mistake" to "usually a mistake"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...<br /><br />Until seeing "The Thing", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing "The Thing", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.<br /><br />If you haven't seen "The Thing", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced! | positive |
Half Past Dead, starring Steven Seagal in the main role was a major B-hit. Half Past Dead 2 is just a direct-to-video sequel, an action movie with nothing lose but with no capacity to win something. It's less entertaining than the first one: in all aspects. But it's although worthy a look. If you like action movies or just something to watch during a popcorn session; if you also like to watch former WWE stars on screen or even if you love to watch sequels, even if they are direct or not.<br /><br />Kurupt did a good job, Bill Goldberg was below the average, I think he isn't made to the job. Kurupt is a good comedian, I say. The rest did the job, but nothing amazing, nothing far from alright.<br /><br />Technical details, well, a production made by Sony can't be great. Cinematography was a disaster but overall direction was acceptable. Whatever, just watch it if you want. If you watch, you won't lose anything. But if you don't... well, you won't lose either. | negative |
This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..<br /><br />As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.<br /><br />The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..<br /><br />I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.<br /><br />It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category. | negative |
You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty! | negative |
I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. <br /><br />For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation. | negative |
I had to do a search on the actresses to find the board of this film because the title is now An Unexpected Love. It's not really worth looking for but I was unfamiliar with both leads and wondered why they were headlining a lesbian flick on Lifetime. Everything's pretty restrained and you don't really get an idea of who these characters are so, as a viewer, I wasn't able to become emotionally invested in the storyline. I guess I'm not the target audience for this but I'm not sure who is. Everything's muted and soft focus and earth tones...nothing's very interesting. I had a prurient interest in seeing two women make out but it's handled so discreetly that I was disappointed. Rent Personal Best instead. | negative |
I loved this film. It manages to make the characters sympathetic (well, most of them) concerning the problems they have with their relationship.<br /><br />Gloria Swanson, as Leila, is in a dusty marriage with a husband who barely notices her presence (though he does notice her absence). The film shows very well why she is tired of married life, and why she is susceptible to a sweet-talking con man, without making her selfish or demanding. The reaction shots of Leila at the dinner table on her anniversary, while her workaholic husband (late to dinner again) eats salted scallions with gusto and pushes bride-and-groom dolls out of the way of his plate, are perfect.<br /><br />The show is stolen - and stolen effortlessly - by Elliott Dexter as Jim, Leila's neglectful husband. After losing Leila to another man, Jim literally cleans up his act, shaving off his mustache, working out to lose the middle-aged spread, and dressing neatly. There are several shots of Jim at home, lonely and thinking of Leila, including a powerful scene when he finds one of her old dresses in the closet. The film gives the audience the advantage of watching Jim's transformation along with Leila. It isn't just the exterior that's more attractive; we come to know much more about the kind of person Jim really is, and we see how completely different he is from Leila's second husband, Schuyler (Lew Cody). Dexter shines as the before-and-after Jim, who is determined, after discovering Schuyler's true character, to win Leila back, if he can. The film's most touching moment comes when Jim and Leila discover that they are standing under the mistletoe, and Jim talks of what he has lost.<br /><br />Definitely worth watching. | positive |
A female vampire kills young women and paints with their blood. She has an assistant who doesn't want to be a vampire, so he has to do what she orders or be turned into a blood sucker. After a few kills, the assistant gets remorse and falls in love with a homeless girl.<br /><br />What can I say about this movie ? That its pacing is over-slow, that it has some strange sound effects (never a bite sounded so strange) and ambiance (new jazz here I come) and that lights don't seem to be included on the set. It looks like an "auteur" horror movie with all the self-sufficiency inside.<br /><br />The plot is completely stupid and as you can guess, it's the female vampire who explains how to kill her even if she doesn't have to do it; of course, crosses, light, garlic and sticks don't work.<br /><br />It's not even a funny lousy movie. Perhaps with some friends and a lot of beers, it can't have its funny sides (to be honest, it's funny during 10 - 15 minutes near the end of the movie). Don't be fooled by the Troma sticker, it's one the bad movie they present. | negative |
There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".<br /><br />There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.<br /><br />I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.<br /><br />Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.<br /><br />I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.<br /><br />Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.<br /><br />It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10. | positive |
Riding Giants is an incredible documentary detailing the history and stories of three influential big-wave surfers, Gregg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton. Stacy Peralta did an amazing job taking on the role of director and should be congratulated for doing such a brilliant job. The structure of the film is edited brilliantly and works perfectly with the narration, interviews, animation and surfing footage. The music soundtrack just adds to the overall satisfaction of watching this film, making Riding Giants brilliant viewing. Personal highlights include any of Greg Noll's comments, what with his straight-to-the-point frankness, Laird Hamilton's footage at Teahupoo, and the out-takes at the end of the movie. But really this entire film is one big, recommended highlight that comes highly recommended if you have the opportunity to see. It's a shame it isn't more well known, but it is a gem deserving of attention. 10/10 | positive |
I have been getting into the Hitchcock series very much lately. I find myself always renting one of his movies when I'm at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video. Like I said before, Hollywood is loosing it's touch incredibly, I needed a reminder that there are terrific films out there. Not to mention, I want to be a film appreciator, not a movie buff. Is there any better way to do that than with Alfred Hitchcock's movies? <br /><br />The Man who knew too Much is another great and exciting thriller starring Alfred's favorite leading man James Stuart and the woman who steals the show Dorris Day. They play husband and wife who go on vacation with their son, but when a spy tells James some information that could arrest another spy, his son is kidnapped and held for ransom. James seems to just doubt Dorris and her ability for ideas on how to get their son back, but she makes a great comeback and just about ends up being the hero of the flick.<br /><br />The acting again, I would say that Dorris was the one who outshined the whole cast. James did a great job keeping up, together these two made you sit down and never budge throughout the film. I loved the little bit of comedy at the end that Alfred added. You'll see what I mean. I would always highly recommend this film, despite not being the best Hitchcock film, it's still a treasure.<br /><br />9/10 | positive |
"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2) | negative |
This has to be the most brutally unfunny "comedy" I've ever seen in my life. Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Christopher Walken as a crazed homeless man CAN'T make me laugh? Something's got to be wrong with this picture. This is the only movie I've ever felt like walking out of. I used free passes, and still felt like I wanted my money back. I can wholeheartedly say that the only movie I've ever seen worse than this one was HOUSE OF THE DEAD. The. ONLY. worse. movie. I laughed very slightly at the merry-go-round scene, and that's it. Spending 2 hours in something billed as a comedy should get you more than one laugh, right? I don't know, I guess the filmmakers thought that "flan" was a funny word, or something. And the other running joke really is beating a dead horse--literally. | negative |
A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU. | negative |
Please don't waste your money on this sorry excuse for a motion picture. The only way I could see someone watching this is if they are a die-hard fan of Erika Elaniak, but you would be better off surfing the internet than to watch this piece of crap. I would rather watch paint dry than go through watching this. <br /><br />They lure you in with Casper and Erika and lead you to believe it is a sci-fi Dracula movie, but it quickly works out to be a farce about Van Helsing's great-great (you get the point) grandson, here ironically for one last show-down between himself and Dracula.<br /><br />The movie also tries to make a political statement, I believe, when it appears that none of the characters in the future know who God is, that they have not been taught about him and don't understand when they see a cross. Could have done a lot more with this idea. It's a shame it turned out the way it did. | negative |
Okay, we've got extreme Verhoeven violence (Although not as extreme as other Verhoeven flicks), we've got plenty of sex and nudity, but something is missing...Oh, yes, it's missing the intelligence that Paul Verhoeven is known for in his sci-fi movies. I admire the way Verhoeven introduces the characters and how they have a sense of humor, but unlike most Verhoeven films, the movie itself doesn't have enough humor for it to fall into the comedy genre. The acting overall was above average compared to most slasher films.<br /><br />What makes Hollow Man a good movie is not the story, not the cast or characters, but the amazing special effects work that would otherwise make a film like this impossible. The crew has truly made an invisible man, without the use of things like a floating hat suspended on piano wires and other practical effects (effects done on set). The most stunning effects scenes are not seen while Kevin Bacon is invisible, they are when Kevin Bacon is becoming invisible and visible.<br /><br />The problem is that this invisible man story deserves to be more imaginitive. Here, it takes place at a lab for the most part. I would have enjoyed seeing the invisible Kevin Bacon robbing a bank and getting away with it, or let's say steal something from people's purses, or something like that. But what is shown is decent enough to make Hollow Man an entertaining movie. Grade: B | positive |
This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck. | negative |
This movie is exciting,daring and the music is very good.The movie Moonwalker was meant to coincide with the album Bad(1987).I have Bad.It is excellent(*****).The movie begins with Michael Jackson performing"Man In The Mirror"on stage.then,it shows a history of Michael,from his early days in the Jackson 5 right up to the Bad era. Oh,and Badder is good too(Badder is a music video parody of the music video for Bad the single).It then shows the Speed Demon video.The song and the video are very,very good indeed.Same for leave me alone,which appears after.Then it shows the movie Moonwalker.after a few minutes,he plays smooth criminal in a club called club 30s.like it when he does the lean.anyway,nice to see you.bye bye. | positive |
The hero John Keem is going after some drug dealers who kidnaps girls for some reason. On his journey he uses karate and kung fu moves and I don't believe he got hit a single time during the movie. This is Crap. | negative |
When I tuned in to my local PBS station last night to watch "The War That Made America". I was expecting a dull documentary, instead I got a very good and believable reenactment of the major events of the time. Now I see the reasons for the American Revolution, and the part the Indian wars played. Larry Nehring IS George Washington, and he is perfect for that part. The narrative to the camera, also work fantastic. I'm looking forward to next week, to see the rest. It's good to see PBS really using the HD format to bring the 1700 right in to our living room.<br /><br />I hope Larry Nehring is seen more in the future, since he is such a talented actor. | positive |
I absolutely love this game to death. Ever since I was 9 years old (I am now 15). It has great graphics, characters, magic, weapons, additions, and don't forget the ultimately awesome dragoon forms! I am still waiting for a remake, prequel, or a sequel to this spectacular video game. <br /><br />You play as Dart, a young swordsman who has the potential to be quite the hero. On this adventure you encounter wondrous creatures and boss fights. You also encounter some friends on the way who have their own special element. Such as Fire, Darkness, Water/Ice, Thunder/Lightning, Earth, Light, and Wind. There are also items known as dragoon spirits, which allow you to transform into magical creatures of legend. Dragons, wizards, creatures called winglies and evil creatures you'll have to face on this adventure of action-packed thrills and excitement. One of my all time favorite games, The Legend of Dragoon! | positive |
This is about a mad scientist who creates a half shark - half man type critter on an uncharted island, then calls up all his old business and academic buddies to come and see his creation (evil laugh) but actually he wants his sharkman to kill them! Lots of bad GCI, goofy plot elements, and babes sweating in tight T-shirts follow.<br /><br />These monster movies all follow a similar formula, but this one spices things up with a bit of humor (I guarantee the folks who made this had tongues firmly planted in cheek), not to mention the sexy babes. But let's mention those sexy babes - several hot babes, in tight T-shirts, sweating profusely. One's in her undies at the beginning, another at the end. Thank you, thank you, makers of bad movies! The plot is full of goofy stuff, a guy drives up in a jeep, slams it right into a tree, then offers to fly everyone off the island in a helicopter. Yeah, um, well, how 'bout we think about that for a while; we'll get back to you. The sharkman is hilarious - either awful CGI or an equally comedic guy in a rubber suit. The mad scientist gives a pretty good performance; he's evil, that's his motivation, he makes no apologies.<br /><br />Overall, if you want a stupid, FUN B-movie, this one should do the job. | positive |
This movie is bad news and I'm really surprised at the level of big name talent who would ever agree to appear in such a piece of junk as this. I imagine there were a few strangled agents sprawled across Hollywood Blvd. as a result of this fiasco. What really gets you is that it could have been good. The directors star appeal and the subject matter was sufficient fodder to spark interest and ticket sales, but this is a flop. The multiple story lines all go from bad to silly by the pictures end, and you end up feeling like a mouse in a maze looking for a piece of cheese that turns out to be rotten. What Spike is able to achieve is revenge against any Italians who may have beat him up when he was a kid or insulted him, as the movie does quite a number on perpetuating outdated and probably offensive Italian stereotypes. As with any Spike Lee film there is some really thought provoking and magical camerawork. He does have the gift of grabbing your psyche and transporting you into his vision if only for a few memorable scenes. But the question remains...can you endure the other 2 hours of head scratching and clock watching as you wonder and wait for the ending that has to be there somewhere. | negative |
I thought it was an original story, very nicely told. I think all you people are expecting too much. I mean...it's just a made for television movie! What are you expecting? Some Great wonderful dramtic piece? I thought it was a really great story for a made for television movie....and that's my opinion. | positive |
I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Hauer at the 2005 Sarasota Film Festival for the U.S. premier of this film. Not only was he gracious enough to autograph my copy of BLADE RUNNER, he took the time to answer some questions about the film before screening THE ROOM for a packed theatre. <br /><br />I was so impressed by the film that I used it as the yardstick by which to compare all other films I had seen at the festival. It was powerful and moving, yet subtle and brief. The film tells the story of how a young man, (older version played by Rutger) one day finds himself entranced by a seemingly ordinary room in an unremarkable building near the street. Walking by, he notices a single window, always open, from which a haunting melody can be heard. Each day, he passes by the room, sometimes standing for hours outside, watching it through the silken drapes that flutter in the light breeze, hoping to get a glimpse of its occupants. Towards the end of the film, we find out how significant this room really is and what has drawn our protagonist to it. <br /><br />The film was cut beautifully. Not a second of screen time was wasted on an uninteresting shot. Any single frame from the film could stand alone in an art gallery. Rutger is amazing. He is mysterious, yet approachable. His dialogue encompasses a series of reflections on a life that has run it's course, for better or worse. His words conjure familiar feelings and thoughts from the audience. I was particularly moved by a scene in which he is looking at some old photos, remembering his favourite dog, his favourite horse and his first love. You get the feeling that you are in his presence, as he allows you into his world to glimpse precious memories of a life that is nearing its end.<br /><br />I loved this film and would recommend it to anyone who is looking for something fresh, intelligent and moving. Should be required viewing for all film majors. | positive |
In the areas where they overlap this fine movie is light years ahead of 2004s Innocence, which gave the impression of a rheumy eye and heavy breathing ogling young girls. Here the effect is much more realistic and really gets inside the heads of the three protagonists as they fumble their way through an adolescence riddled with pitfalls. The three principals, all unknown to me give very sure-footed performances, the kind, in fact, that may be so natural that it will be difficult for them to replicate this quality of acting in other films so I wouldn't be too surprised if they are not heard from again. It would be nice if this could get away from the Art Houses and into the Multiplexes where there's just an outside chance it might 'speak' to the bubblegum crowd it isn't aimed at. | positive |
i wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry. Porretta was good looking but resembled like a Mexican porn star not an English outlaw. costumes? what costumes? a t-shirt with strips of black leather on it. it was Marion's clothes--or lack of them--that really got me. do the 'fans' of this stinker really believe women dressed like that in medieval england. the Mongols and vikings were inaccurate and stupid, but the episode with an ALIEN was worst of all. Especially as his make up mainly consisted of oatmeal on his face--an old trick.The hedgehog monster was pretty funny, as was climbing up the side of a castle on a ladder of arrows--as if. the US accents grated as did the initial drawling voice over' RAW-bin Hood and LIDDLE John'.the second robin and Marion were really quite minging in looks and what was left of the show went totally down the pan... | negative |
I don't know why all the previous comments are approval of this movie. IT IS , well not by far but...,THE SUCKIEST MOVIE I'VE SEEN LATELY, full of clichés, bad acting, actually no...very bad acting and has a silly plot...If I would have seen it in a cinema I would have walked out after the first 20 minutes. I f you hate somebody , make him/her watch this movie...that's how bad it is. A girl who has an imaginary boy/friend that gives up a relationship with a real one because her imagination is jealous....but i think it figures...she takes after her parents who also have some mental issues...plus the character who is supposed to be I think the laughing stock of it, the thing that should make you laugh, cal's room mate is a serious nut case and just makes me feel sorry for him...and the whole movie | negative |
The 1990s was a great decade for British sitcom with many popular creations such as ONE FOOT IN THE GRAVE, ABSOLUTELY FABOULOUS THE THIN BLUE LINE, THE BRITTAS EMPIRE and MEN BEHAVING BADLY arriving onto TV screens for the first time.<br /><br />However, MR. BEAN is, hands down, the greatest sitcom of the 1990s.<br /><br />MR. BEAN represents the first major attempt at a throwback to the era of silent greats such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton for several decades. It brings to the audience a single character - Mr. Bean - played to perfection by Rowan Atkinson.<br /><br />Many people who have commented on this page as well as on the message boards on this and other websites have engaged in debates about whether or not Mr. Bean has a mental disability or has significant learning difficulties arising from such a disability. However, I believe this debate is unnecessary because I highly doubt that the creators of this show expected anyone in the audience for a single moment to even consider Mr. Bean in such a context.<br /><br />Mr. Bean is shown to be a character who seems to have very few friends, rarely speaks and chooses to solve problems by himself with no guidance from others. Some of his methods to approaching day-to-day tasks such as preparing lunch or going to the dentist are approached in a manner bizarre to anyone watching the show. This is where the humour derives from. Mr. Bean is not necessarily someone with a mental disability, he may just be an eccentric person accustomed to dealing with things his own way. And naturally some of his methods to completing a single task often result in disaster, which we then see Mr. Bean try to resolve.<br /><br />Sometimes, we see Mr. Bean show a mean or petty streak, often trying to compete with those around him or play pranks on those least expecting it. But no real harm comes to anyone at the end of the day and outcomes are always reassuring.<br /><br />Unlike most examples of British comedy in the past 30 years, MR. BEAN is simple, inoffensive, harmless U-rated entertainment suitable for everyone in the family to enjoy. It is for this reason why the TV series became a big hit in dozens of countries throughout the world. It is also why it will still be remembered in several decades from now when lots of other TV shows will have come, gone and been forgotten.<br /><br />Some critics claim the show only appeals to children yet I laugh just as much at Mr. Bean's antics now as I did when I first saw the episodes as a kid in the 1990s. Rowan Atkinson has used his natural ability to create effective visual gags that seem just as funny on repeat viewings as they did the first time.<br /><br />The TV series has to date spawned two spin-off movies, BEAN and MR. BEAN'S HOLIDAY. As one familiar with the type of humour shown in the TV series would expect, it does not translate to success on the big screen. The two movies do little justice to the TV series and fail to truly capture the magic of the episodes. The greatest failing in both movies perhaps resides in the change of setting. In both movies, the producers take Mr. Bean out of his normal British surroundings into America (the first movie) and France (the second movie). As a result, the movie characters around Mr. Bean respond differently to his behaviour than their TV series counterparts. Both movies re-use gags from the TV series, and the evidence shows that the gags were done right the first time. In the second movie, Mr. Bean is shown to be behaving out-of-character with some aspects of his personality exaggerated to the point where some gags seem dumb rather than funny. At various times, I found myself thinking that the character I was watching was not Mr. Bean but a pale caricature. It is clear that Rowan Atkinson was not enjoying himself as much as he did in the TV series. His heart just wasn't in the performance. After the second movie came out, he stated publicly that he would not play Mr. Bean again. I realise how he felt.<br /><br />Returning to the TV series, each episode shows evidence of meticulous planning in terms of writing and execution in every single scene. Even the weakest episode is still highly enjoyable and well ahead of the two movies.<br /><br />My favourite episodes are the first three - these set the high standard that was to continue. I consider the final episode to be the weakest but still hilarious nonetheless.<br /><br />To summarise, MR. BEAN is a truly superb sitcom suitable for all the family. Rowan Atkinson is a true comic genius and the evidence is in the 14 episodes of this TV series. My recommendation - watch and enjoy. But only see the movies if you consider yourself a die-hard fan after seeing the TV series. | positive |
'Major Payne' is a film about a major who makes life a living Hell for his small group of boys in the marines. This film does not really have a lot to offer, but it provides several hilarious moments that are well-worth a watch. Don't expect it to be a memorable film, however. Just expect to laugh your way through the film and at the expense of other people. The confrontation between Major Payne and the chubby boy were hilarious, and that's really all I remember about the film except for the boys wanting revenge on Major Payne. Again, it is not a great film, and it is probably best watched on a rainy day when you need some laughter. | negative |
I saw this film at the International Film Festival Of Brussels. I also met the director of the film. I heard that Ed Wood wrote the story in 10 years! I'm sure he thought his would be his masterpiece - his triumph.<br /><br />Well, if you take the film seriously (like mr. Wood did) it is really one of the worst films you will ever see. And this is cool. The big joke of I Woke Up Early The Day I Died is that it doesn't even try to be a decent film.<br /><br />This makes the film very, very good. The script is filled with nihilism and anarchism - a lot of black humour. Billy Zane's role is absolutely excellent. You see, this is either high art...or low rubbish.<br /><br />****/***** | positive |
This ensemble piece about adults who return to the formulative Summer camp of their youth was a very quiet entrant and exiter to the cinemas in the Autumn of 1993. I'd say that was a shame,but then again,some of the better movies ARE quiet releases that don't get much hype or praise.<br /><br />Diane LAne,Kevin Pollack,Elizabeth Perkins,Vincent Spano,Julie Warner,Bill Paxton,Kimberly Williams,Matt Craven and Alan Arkin(who is painfully good here) are the group of actors who flesh out these roles as people who have grown old with good,bad and funny memories of summers gone past. This film covers the gambit of emotions,mostly pleasant,and the film never hammers away at the viewer to feel what the characters are feeling,preferring to allow the viewer to enter into the memories on their own. Since I am a movie viewer who bristles at bluntly,brazen manipulation in films,this is something that I appreciate from writer/director Mike Binder.<br /><br />This film's a great cheap rent,a good main rent and even a pretty sit in a theater flick. You might run across this on TV,and I would definitely suggest a look-see. | positive |
Everything about "Choose Connor" was top=drawer, especially the script and the very proficient work done by the 21-year-old director, writer, producer Luke Eberl . . . a talented young man from whom to expect great things. All the acting was credible, the dialogue smart, the theme important. Loved it!!!<br /><br />Saw it at the 2007 Woodstock Film Festival, where it was screened twice and went over tremendously with the audiences. It's more than just a coming of age movie -- this kid learns a hard, heartbreaking lesson about trust, politics and "the system" -- how things really work to suit the personal agendas of those in powerful positions.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie to anyone with a working brain. | positive |
Going into this movie, I had heard good things about it. Coming out of it, I wasn't really amazed nor disappointed. Simon Pegg plays a rather childish character much like his other movies. There were a couple of laughs here and there-- nothing too funny. Probably my favorite parts of the movie is when he dances in the club scene. I totally gotta try that out next time I find myself in a club. A couple of stars here and there including: Megan Fox, Kirsten Dunst, that chick from X-Files, and Jeff Bridges. I found it quite amusing to see a cameo appearance of Thandie Newton in a scene. She of course being in a previous movie with Simon Pegg, Run Fatboy Run. I see it as a toss up, you'll either enjoy it to an extent or find it a little dull. I might add, Kirsten Dunst is adorable in this movie. :3 | positive |
The lovely Danish actress Sonja Richter steals this film from under the noses of everyone, no small feat considering the terrific performances surrounding her.<br /><br />Richter plays Anna, an out-of-work, independent-minded, somewhat neurotic (and perhaps suicidal) actress who lands a desperation job looking after a wheelchair-bound, muted, aged father named Walentin (the great Danish actor Frits Helmuth, who died at 77 shortly after this film was made).<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />Walentin refuses to respond to anyone --until he confronts the gifted Anna, whose whimsical and mischievous manner brings the poor old battered devil back from a self-imposed death sentence.<br /><br />Writer/director/actor Eric Clausen has made a strong film about the difficulty a ponderous businessman son (Jorgen, played by Clausen) has loving a father who has never accepted him. The film sags toward the end, but Clausen has some important things to say about euthanasia, the nature and value of loving and caring, and how one person, the irrepressible Anna, can alter the course of a human life. Highly recommended. Sonja Richter's performance is alone worth the price of admission. | positive |
I think that this is possibly the funniest movie I have ever seen. Robert Harling's script is near perfect, just check out the "quotes" section; on second thought, just rent the DVD, since it's the delivery that really makes the lines sing.<br /><br />Sally Field gives a comic, over-the-top performance like you've never seen from her anywhere else, and Kevin Kline is effortlessly hilarious. Robert Downey, Jr. is typically brilliant, and in a very small role, Kathy Najimy is a riot as the beleaguered costumer. I was never much of a fan of Elisabeth Shue, but she's great here as the one *real* person surrounded by a bevy of cartoon characters on the set of "The Sun Also Sets" -- that rumbling you feel beneath you is Hemingway rolling over in his grave. Either that, or he's laughing really hard.<br /><br />Five stars. Funny, funny, funny. | positive |
I have watched every version of this play that I can think of, including several on the stage, and Sir Derek Jacobi is absolutely the best Hamlet I have ever seen! <br /><br />He has the most wonderful voice for stage acting, and his expressive face will take you on a roller coaster of emotions throughout this play. The way in which he delivers his lines takes you on a journey through madness. He (as Hamlet)can in an instant be loving, soft and gentle and in another instant be raging against the hell that is his life. You believe that he is in pain, you believe that he is angry, you believe that he is not a little mad. You believe he IS Hamlet.<br /><br />Of course, some of the thanks obviously goes to Shakespeare, :) but without an excellent actor to get the words from the page to the stage, it doesn't really matter how well written a play is.<br /><br />If you like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. If you don't like Shakespeare, you absolutely must see this version. You will come away with a new appreciation for Shakespeare if you do. The nuanced performance that Sir Derek gives will leave you breathless. | positive |
My comment is for the Russian version of Space Race named Bitva za Kosmos (Battle for Space) shown on Russia's First Channel on April 10-13, 2006. Bad translation could have ruined some details but I doubt it's the case. The number of factual errors is such that it's impossible to list them, especially in the first episode (the development of first missiles). Even the U.S. half of the film contains multiple errors and omissions. The audience is not told of any V-2/A-4 launches from the U.S. Three different Jupiter C rockets are launched with the same serial number 'UE' onboard. Apollo 1 is to be launched to the Moon, etc. In the Russian half, each and every person is ludicrous. Korolev is scared of NKVD, Glushko is saboteur and traitor, Mishin is alcoholic etc. Men as functions; no motivation, no life at all. Uniform and decorations are awful. Gagarin sings a frivolous song awaiting launch (I think this was added specially for Russian version). | negative |
Not a bad word to say about this film really. I wasn't initially impressed by it but it grew on me quickly. I like it a lot and I think its a shame that many people can't see past the fact that it was banned in some territories, mine being one of them. The film delivers in the shock, gore and atmosphere department. The score is a beautiful piece of suspense delivering apparatus. It only seems fair that Chris Young went on to be one of the best composers in the business. The acting in this film is of a somewhat high standard, if a little wooden in some spots, and the effects are very real and gritty. All of this is high praise for a good slasher film in my book. I've noted in some reviews that the film has gotten serious flack having the famous killer's P.O.V shot. And I ask: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? It is a classic shot that evokes dread into any good fan of the genre and is a great to keep the killer's identity a secret. The only thing that stops this film getting top marks in my book is that the surprise twist(killer revealed) is not handled with more care, I mean it just happens kind of quickly, though the great performances make it just about credible. Aside from that PRANKS is a great movie (though I prefer the original title) and its a shame that so many people knock it off as just a cheap piece of crap. Its more than that, but only few know that as it seems to have gotten lost in the haze of early 80s slasher. What a shame.... Its a really good movie people! Believe me! | positive |
After 30 minutes..mostly fast forwarding, deleted it off my recorder. The first Critters movie was self-consciously fun, The "conversation" between the critters just before Granny blows them away off the porch, for example. This film just limps along, waiting for someone to shoot it and put it out of your misery.<br /><br />I can't imagine anyone who worked on this turkey being proud of it.<br /><br />One was fun, four just was awful. Don't bother even if the alternative is watching reruns of a TBS "700 Club" fund-raiser, you'll at least get some good laughs there (and the "alien" makeup is more believable..grin). | 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.