review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does). | negative |
This movie was pretty good. The acting was great, and there were some really great actors in it like, Buchholz and Roger Moore. This film is full of surprises. Confusing at times...yes, but the twists and turns of the plot always keeps you in suspense. The only thing that this movie had too much of was exploding cars. | positive |
"There are some things you just don't do" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.<br /><br />My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled "My Boss' Daugther", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.<br /><br />The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.<br /><br />It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.<br /><br />The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp? | negative |
I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? I watched this film early 70's.It is the best film I have ever watched And I will never forget it as long as I live. I hate wars. I hate wars. I hate wars. I wonder why we humans still let wars happen. Do you? Do you know why all these wars go on and on and on? innocent people get killed, even today, for stupid and unreal rezone ? | positive |
Having seen, and loved this film in Australia, I was very keen to get me paws on a copy. I got one on DVD back in the UK only to find that it's a very different edit.<br /><br />The domestic Australain edit I saw is snappier. The UK ,and I presume European, edits spends a lot longer on the narrator played by Jimmy's dead brother.And in truth belabours that and few other points to no real benefit.<br /><br />It is not a serious criticism, but the Oz edit is just brisker and I think more assured.<br /><br />I can't say why they felt it needed expansion for the overseas market?<br /><br />So careful about which one you go for.<br /><br />I went for both. | positive |
I wish I had my rental money back from this piece of trash so I could donate it to the Home for Aged Actors. Total rubbish!! Five people watched this movie at the same time and there wasn't one single laugh to be heard, lots of yawning though. Paltrow's a beautiful woman and she was the best thing to look at in the entire so-called comedic movie.. | negative |
Do NOT avoid this movie. Simply because it is so bad that it is absolutely hilarious. It possibly is the worst movie I have ever seen but it was so bad that my friends and I were able to laugh at every single moment of this film. At times we actually debated whether it was this bad on purpose but we're pretty sure that it is not. Characters appear out of nowhere as if they have already been established, the scenery changes mid scene to this warehouse constantly, and the Vampire Assassin ends up having around 6 climactic fights with enemies before finally getting to the head vampire. You will also be able to enjoy the one and only face of the Vampire Assassin as he never changes his expression despite his obvious attempts to. So if you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh histerically then I suggest this one as long as you go in with an open mind. Don't expect a good movie, expect the worst... and it will be even worse than that. I seriously want to buy this movie and place it atop my comedy movie selection. Right next to Anchorman. | negative |
I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender, and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played Cora/companion. | positive |
Dr. Sayer(Philippe Leroy), a wealthy physician with psychological issues regarding the opposite sex, kidnaps an employee, Maria(Dagmar Lassander), a free-thinking liberal woman who believes men must be the ones "fixed" instead of females. Sayer retreats to his palatial estate, running Maria through a humiliating series of mind games, threatening to molest and kill her. Sayer's desire, it seems, is to dominate her body, mind and soul, making her his sexual slave, obeying his commands, adhering to his every wish and whim. After resistance, at first, Maria slowly teeters towards his objective, but has plans of her own..she says she wishes to help Sayer relinquish his sadistic behavior towards women, so that he could love and not feel such yearning desires to harm. It seems that Sayer has her under his grip, agreeing to certain rather embarrassing scenarios(..such as lotioning his toes, "making love" to a blow-up doll which is a recreation of himself, often spending time topless, and even getting hosed down when she slaps him hard across the face bringing blood from his nose)which almost break her, but something happens as the troubled doctor slowly falls in love with Maria..and through what appears to be a desperate attempt to end the madness, Maria gains an upper hand, toying with Sayer's lust for her body.<br /><br />More of a battle of wills, a kind of sexual warfare where it seems one is in charge when in fact the other truly has the upper hand. Through a great deal of the film, Sayer mistreats Maria, forcing her(..it seems)to submit to his series of psychological games of a sexual nature. Her attempts to escape fail because his home is such a well designed fortress..it's a typical European art deco kind of palace, fashioned and orchestrated by a man who has kept to this weekend retreat of his for quite a spell(..it features walls and doors opening at his command, with an area quarantined off for his "victims"). But, once Maria seemingly downs a bottle of pills as a result of her anguish at his hands, the tables are turned and she has him where she wants him. He finds that he actually craves her and Maria uses this to her advantage, playing hard to get when Sayer wishes to embrace and ravage her(..and, I could understand his frustration because she has this allure that can drive a man crazy)<br /><br />I felt the film works, ultimately, as a war cry for women, their empowerment and uprising against men who have the notion that they should always have control, sexually and mentally. The "twist" finalizes this ideal. I couldn't swallow Sayer's fate because of his rigorous cardiovascular activity and exercise regimen..we see how he develops his toned athletic figure, and how this regimen is part of the normal routine every weekend before the true mind games with his victim begin. If he is so well fit, and spends such time developing himself for the extracurricular activities which follow his regimen, how could he suffer the fate which follows his finalizing the deal with Maria at the end when she stops resisting his advances? <br /><br />Maria, he would later admit, is the first he's actually kidnapped; others from the past, call-girls, were paid for their services so that Sayer could feel the power of dominating a woman, even if it's all a fictitious charade brought about by a deeply troubled individual with an inability to connect with the opposite sex. The spontaneous decision to do so, to take a leap from the norm, costs him more than he could ever know.<br /><br />All this psycho-sexual sub-text is rather fascinating to see unravel, but Dagmar Lassander, such a yummy sex kitten, was my reason for enjoying it so..without her, I couldn't have liked it as much because she's vital as a victim worth striving to obtain. Perhaps the film's highlight, the delicious dance as Lassander, clothed in gauze(!), unravels the wardrobe exposing her breasts to a jazzy score..it's the kind of sexually seductive moment that makes your mouth water and forehead sweat. Dagmar Lassander must've been a joy for fashion designers because she wears those clothes so well..she has this kind of cool, a sophistication and screen presence along with her beauty and seductive powers, Dagmar transcends the part to create an iconic character which would define her career..even if the film isn't well known(..I found about through word of mouth). The provocative nature of the script and risqué subject matter might not appeal to certain crowds as it deals with sex(..and pain) in many different forms, the dialogue quite illustrative and elaborative. At times, I couldn't help but chuckle at Sayer's comments towards an imprisoned Maria, regarding how he enjoys making women suffer, and the thrill he gets at forcing them into a type of slavery(..in an attempt to make the words poetic, it all feels rather hokey). But, Dagmar is the real reason to see it, and the film, to me, works at it's best as a fetish film, a possible male fantasy with this seemingly prim and proper idealist, captured and held against her will, forced into a precarious situation, her fate possibly at the mercy of a complex and possibly dangerous masochist. Her submission, and how she reacts towards his aggressive behavior with her(..there are times where she unfolds to a wavering desire to embrace him, unveiling a possible attraction towards him which, in itself, might startle some who watch it)are among the most fascinating highlights of this exploitation feature. My other favorite scene, besides the dance, is the piano concerto with Sayer fondling Maria as she plays a soothing melody. | positive |
Some of the acting was a bit suspect. I remember that asswipe Alexander Walker (Evening Standard critic, yeah OK, he's now dead) launched into a rant about this film saying it was a disgrace portraying NI Protestants as murderers. Now with respect to all NI protestants, this film was loosely based on the Shankill Butchers (who were loyalists)and who roamed Belfast in the 1970's. Believe me, they were not called butchers for nothing. my main moan about this film is the it shows no ray of light or hope, it's all doom & gloom, i mean did the little girl at the end have to die. Maybe this sounds corny but it could have taken the tact that not all Prods & tiags are bad or wholly good either. | positive |
Saw this today with my 8 year old. I thought it was cute. I agree with the other poster that it wasn't anything like the book that I can remember, but we still enjoyed it. All of the kids are pretty good and all in all pretty entertaining. Billy is the new kid who accepts a dare by the school bully to eat 10 worms in a day. If he loses he has to walk down the hall at school with worms in his pants. The beginning of the movie is set up to show that Billy has a VERY weak stomach and pukes at almost anything. Hilarity ensues with a bunch of different way to cook the worms. Good message about standing up to bullies and of course, a sappy happy ending. | positive |
*Minor Spoiler* <br /><br />Inhabited isn't scary, but it is creepy. It is an interesting 'little' story with good acting and great special effects makeup.<br /><br />Basic plot: A little girl blames the strange things going on at her family's new house and accompanying playhouse on her faerie friends.<br /><br />The movie doesn't waste time getting moving, though the ending could have been more involved.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie to those expecting/wanting hardcore horror, but I do recommend it to those who want a chiller and not necessarily a thriller. | positive |
I recently viewed Manufactured Landscapes at the Seattle International Film Festival. I was drawn to the movie as a photographer because I'm both familiar and a fan of Burtynsky's work. While I believe the movie does a good job getting it's message across, I couldn't help but feel that it was made as a complete afterthought to the photographs and subsequent popular book by Burtynsky. Obviously one reason for this is the extensive use of still photographs featuring zooms and pans across them. While this is a good effect when used economically, I felt like 75% of the movie was just stills from Burtynsky's book (which I already own). That's probably an exaggeration, but that's how I felt. If you own the book or are familiar with his work you might be better off skipping this one. | negative |
A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of<br /><br /> the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but "hilarious"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10 | negative |
RKS films always have been commercial films which suited the 90's, from GHAYAL, DAMINI<br /><br />His last few films KHAKEE were watchable FAMILY was crap<br /><br />This film is a decent film but could be better<br /><br />The problem lies in there is lot of old fashioned clichés thrown in and many scenes come out too filmy and lengthy<br /><br />Ajay Devgan's character is shown very well but his character gets heroic which could be subtle<br /><br />The lengthy flashback could be avoided as thigns are simply long drawn<br /><br />Even the street play in the second half look too simplistic and hardly a solution though the message is well brought out<br /><br />Direction by RKS is decent, though it could be better Music is okay<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks the part very well and is at ease playing his part mostly though at times he does look ill at ease in light scenes He excels in dramatics Vidya excels in the scene front of media Pankaj has a not proper defined role and too filmy yet he excels in his part Darshan Jariwala hams as the old age villain the rest are okay | negative |
This is an excellent movie with a stellar cast and some great acting. I never tire of watching it. I especially love the scene where Danny Glover's character and Kevin Kline's character namely Simon and Mack have brunch together. Kevin Kline is such a natural and it seems his mannerisms are effortless and one you would encounter often. SO its a very 'real' movie. <br /><br />One of the most powerful scenes in the movie however, is at the beginning of the movie when Simon arrives at the scene where Mack's car has broken down. The movie also has a strong message and is unlike the stereotypical message carrying movie where there's one person preaching his guts out to an audience. Instead the actors' emotions and situations deliver an impactive message that does best without the use of words. And lastly, Mary McDonell is brilliant as always. | positive |
A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.<br /><br />A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.<br /><br />The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.<br /><br />This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act. | negative |
It seems to me that a lot of people don't know that Blade is actually a superhero movie on par with X-Men, Daredevil, Punisher and the likes. What all these heroes (and in the case of X-Men hero group) have in common is that they were all conceived in the magical world of Marvel. Blade was originally a normal person (in a blue outfit) who chased vampires because of a personal grudge and eventually facing of with Dracula himself and he was for lack of a better word boring. So boring in fact that the character was shelved and in fact never used in the Marvel universe. At least until he was reinvented.<br /><br />David Goyer did a stroke of genius when he took the character of Blade and turned him into a leather clad dark knight. He can't take all the credit though and much of this must go to Stephen Norrington as well who with his distinct visual style brings out the best of the character. The Blade character (Wesley Snipes) is pretty amazing in this film and mixes martial arts with Batman like darkness. Snipes is pretty good as the title character and is successful in bringing out the duality and inner demons of the character. He is, however, a pretty rigid actor both in voice and in posture and is only interesting enough for one film (which is clearly seen from the inferior sequels). Kris Kristofferson is good as well and really brings the tormented character of Whistler to life with energy and sense of timing. N'Bushe Wright, however, is fairly weak as a leading lady making her character relatively flat and lifeless. Donal Logue is pretty funny and manages to do a lot with a minor character. German, Udo Kier, should also be mentioned as he brings a lot of finesse and style to the vampire race, probably born of his experiences from playing Dracula. Stephen Dorf provides the best acting in the film and his chilling performance as Deacon Frost stands as one of the best screen villains I have perhaps ever seen.<br /><br />The story is good and, I feel, renews the vampire genre (something that hasn't been done since Robert Rodrigues' From Dusk Till Dawn) by adding a lot of contemporary elements and maintaining the comic book feel. By saying that the film has a comic book feel does not mean that the film is unrealistic. Far from it. A lot of effort has been put in trying to make the film seem as real as possible. Including the effects which are pretty good for their time. I found the vampire "dustings" to be a very nice touch. In stead of adding a lot of blood when a vampire dies Norrington chose to let the vampires spontaneously com-bust which looks great. The fact that the overall effects were well done adds to the credibility of the film which would otherwise have fallen flat on its face.<br /><br />As previously stated Norrington has a very distinct visual style that sets him apart from the directors of the following Blade movies. Del Toro is nearly as skilled but I prefer Norrington's style. His style gives the film a very special look and feel but most importantly it gives the film atmosphere. A very tense dark atmosphere which works great in tune with the main character and story. Along with the visual style the music which also works fine and adds a lot to the atmosphere of the movie.<br /><br />All in all Blade is a very entertaining movie that should probably have had an 8 from me but a few annoying flaws (which cannot be revealed without spoiling the movie, suffice to say, many of them are located near the ending of the film) does that the film must settle with a high 7.<br /><br />7/10 | positive |
This final Voyager episode begins 23 years in the future. Voyager has made it back home. In the many years it took to return tho, the Vulcan Tuvoks' mind has been destroyed. He carried a disease they were too late getting home to cure.<br /><br />Captain Janeway comes across aliens who have time travel technology. She realizes, there's a Warp Conduit in the Delta Quadrant that could bring Voyager home immediately - if she could go back in time and notify Voyager. There's one problem. The Conduit is deep inside Borg Space.<br /><br />Janeway visits Tuvok. He's like a child. He scribbles tho, obsessed, working on math problems or movie reviews or something, he's convinced are important somehow. In the institution, Tuvok cries, asking for 'Janeway' to please, please come back to him.<br /><br />Janeway decides to commandeer a federation shuttle and equip it with weapons technology 20 years ahead of the Borg, in the hopes of going back in time and using this new technology to guide Voyager to the Warp Conduit.<br /><br />When she goes back in time and links up with Voyager, Janeway meets her younger self. The two captains disagree, arguing about the plan. The real-captain visits Tuvok asking him if it's true he has a brain disorder. Tuvok admits it's true, but it can't be cured by the facilities on the ship so he's kept it to himself.<br /><br />The young Captain agrees to the older Captains' plan. To increase their chances of success the older Janeway plans to distract the Borg with her shuttle craft. The Borg actually capture Janeway and her shuttle. The Borg Queen personally assimilates Captain Janeway. But Janeway's expected this! the Borg Queen has assimilated a virus into herself that kills her. With the Borg Queen dead Voyager makes it thru the Warp Conduit back to federation space. | positive |
I loathe, despise, and hate this film with a passion that makes the red hot gates of hell look cold by comparison. it's nothing but a campy, frightening, and completly shoddy trip down memory lane to that oh-so-nasty time, the 70's, a decade im glad i wasnt a part of if this absolute trite is all that was on offer!<br /><br />the animation is sickeningly dated, not least of all with it's tacky, missing frames, and characters with huge, bulbous heads, this film is an eye-sore. from the knowing, snide nod to the parents with the freakily gay sea horse, and it's camp hand motions and kenneth williams-esque voice, to the overtly, unsubtly druggy anthem, High Cockalorum, this film, im sad to say, is one that was forced upon me as a child and i have never fully recovered from the terror it caused me....<br /><br />This ghastly display of complete terribleness should carry an R rated certificate, so disturbing it is in it's contents! | negative |
Great British director Christopher Nolan (Momento, Insomnia), directs this odd film about a struggling writer obsessed with following people. This proves harmless at first but soon turns dangerous after taking the game a step further after meeting a like-minded man who shows him the ins and outs of breaking and entering. The two men soon get in over their heads in a strange world involving the mafia and prostitution. Jeremy Theobald plays the writer and Alex Haw the like-minded friend. Both are great performances. This low budget movie was shot total guerrilla-style with no permits for any locations and no big stars but has what a lot of huge budget films don't have which is a clever script and creative direction. An impressive debut by one of todays best directors. Good Stuff! | positive |
I am a Sociologist/Anthropologist specializing in the field of Symbolic Interactionism, and I must say that this film exhibits high quality in the symbolic context throughout the entire film. To anyone who has not yet seen this, I recommend that you also read "Man's Search For Ultimate Meaning" by Victor E. Frankl. I think you will be able to draw some amazing correlations.<br /><br />That being said, I would like to say that despite the fact that the main characters are gay, this is not a story about being gay. This is a story about seeking out and finding meaning in life, despite the difficulties and challenges, the pain and terror that stand in your way. This is a story of seeking and finding balance and wholeness and happiness. | positive |
John Parrish is an ex Union officer who plans to sell his ranch and land to the Wilkison's over at Anchor. The trouble is that the price being offered is way to low and when they start to bully Parrish and his workers, he has a change of heart, particularly when things take a brutal turn for the worse.<br /><br />Originally after watching this one i had a sense of frustration, chiefly because of the cast that was involved. When you got Edward G. Robinson, Glenn Ford and Barbara Stanwyck in the same movie, you hope that they get a story and script from which to excel. Sadly they don't get chance to produce a Western classic worthy of multiple revisits, or is that my over expectation is doing it a disservice?. Well i slept on it and decided to ponder further about the picture. I think yes it's fair to say that the actors in question deserved a better story from which to work from, it is, when all is said and done, a plot that has been milked for all it's worth, and then some. But The Violent Men is still a very rewarding film regardless of the missed opportunities evident with the production.<br /><br />Glenn Ford as Parrish is as cool as an Eskimo's nose throughout, and it's always great to see Babs Stanwyck playing a bitch because she's good at it. While Eddie G, when one gets used to him being in a Western, is fine in what is an under written part. Robinson, who stepped in at the last minute when first choice as Lee Wilkison, Broderick Crawford got injured, is the one who is short changed the most by the makers, even supporting characters such as the devilish Wade Matlock {a grinning delight from the reliable Richard Jaeckel} and Judith Wilkison {a radiant Dianne Foster} get something to leave an impression with. But for what it is, Robinson's crutch toting "bad" guy is at the least memorable for all the right reasons.<br /><br />Not shy on action and gun play, it's with the twists and almost Shakespearean tragedies that Rudolph Maté's film rises above the mundane, with all of it gorgeously framed by Burnett Guffey's stunning cinematography. Lone Pine in Alabama has been used on many a Western picture {see Seven Men From Now for another glorious use of it}, but here Guffey really excels and manages to dazzle the eyes at every turn. The Violent Men isn't a great Western picture, and perhaps a better director than Maté could have really given Donald Hamilton's {The Big Country} novel an adaptation to be proud of. But for every niggle and irk i personally had with it, i found two more reasons to actually really like it, so that it be, it's recommended, for sure. 7/10 | positive |
I chanced upon this movie because I had a free non-new release from Blockbuster and needed to grab something quickly, as the store was getting ready to close for the evening. The plain white cover and title intrigued me. I'm a (relatively speaking) "old" lady and my son is a young man of 30. I adore movies that are sheer entertainment, such as The Sixth Sense, Interview With A Vampire, Harry Potter and Beetlejuice. My son, on the other hand, is a film graduate and enjoys very specialized foreign films, such as those directed by Bergman or Hertzog. We generally hate each other's movie choices, HOWEVER, we both watched and LOVED the movie NOTHING! It was unlike any movie we'd ever seen before. We're both cynical/critical personality types and we usually crack on movies while we watch them -- but in this case we just laughed and enjoyed the film from start to finish. It is our opinion that if this movie had been promoted and shown in the main stream theaters in the U.S. it would have done very well indeed. | positive |
Although I agree that it's a good but not great movie, for many of the reasons other posters have mentioned, I still enjoy it. One reason is the music: I'd call attention to the very cool appearance by the Candoli brothers -- Conte and Pete -- in a well-staged scene in the nightclub. These guys were two of the best jazz trumpeters of their day, and they manage to convincingly boggle the mind of Jimmy Stewart by playing an hysterical trumpet duet, one trumpet in each of Stewart's ears. The Candolis really did play that well, too, though I suspect the actual music for that scene was dubbed later by the two of them. I don't know much about George Duning, who gets the credit for the music (other than that he seems to have worked with the Three Stooges on more than one occasion), but the casting of the Candoli brothers as jazz-playing warlocks was a real nice touch. | positive |
This is the worst italian movie ever, quite possibly the worst movie of all time! Joe D'Amato is of course no cinematic genius but many of his movies are interesting and watchable. Unfortunatly this is not one of them. Its cheesy and boring....waaaaay boring. If you want a movie to MST3k, get Troll 2, if you want a movie to put someone into a coma, get deep blood! | negative |
So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do? <br /><br />I will tell you! <br /><br />Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!<br /><br />The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.<br /><br />It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.<br /><br />The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary! <br /><br />(The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )<br /><br />Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.<br /><br />Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer! | positive |
I'm grading this film on a curve, in other words, it isn't the greatest film that has ever been made but it does exactly what it set out to do. This is an excellent T&A film. I have no idea the count of how many T's or A's were seen in this film but I did see one shot that had 16 bare T's at one time, just to give you an idea. There are topless girls all throughout. There is a wet T-shirt contest scene. And the climax involves a game of touch football between two all-girl teams and every time one scores a touchdown the entire opposing team losing a piece of clothes. I don't know why this gets such a low rating here. Perhaps the people who gave it low scores thought they were going to see Citizen Kane. I love this movie and hope to find more similar ones. If you are looking for a GOOD campy T&A film I'd recommend this one. | positive |
Being a fan of the first Lion King, I was definitely looking forward to this movie, but I knew there was really no way it could be as good as the original. I know that many Disney fans are wary of the direct-to-video movies, as I have mixed feelings of them as well.<br /><br />While watching The Lion King 1½, I tried to figure out what my own viewpoint was regarding this movie. Am I going to be so devout about The Lion King that I will nitpick at certain scenes, or am I just going to accept this movie as just another look at The Lion King story? Most of the time, I found myself embracing the latter.<br /><br />The Lion King 1½ definitely has its cute and funny moments. Timon and Pumbaa stole the show in the first movie and definitely deserved a movie that centered around them. People just love these characters! My favorite parts of the movie include the montage of Timon & Pumbaa taking care of young Simba and the surprise ending featuring some great cameos.<br /><br />I could have done without many of the bathroom jokes though, like the real reason everyone bowed to baby Simba at the beginning of Lion King 1. I guess those types of jokes are for the younger set (which after all is the target audience. I don't think many kids are really concerned about Disney's profit margin on direct-to-video movies.)<br /><br />However, I will say that I was somewhat annoyed when they directly tied in scenes from the original movie to this movie. I'm just too familiar with the original that those scenes just stuck out like sore thumbs to me. Something would be different with the music or the voices that it would just distract me.<br /><br />As for the music, it wasn't too bad, but don't expect any classics to come from this movie. At least LK2 had the nice ballad, "Love Will Find a Way." As for the voicework, it was well done in this movie. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella did a great job as always, and even new cast members, the classic comedic actor Jerry Stiller and Julie Kavner (best known as Marge Simpson), did a great job also. You can even enjoy these great voice talents even more by checking out the Virtual Safari on Disc 2 of the DVD. That feature is definitely a lot of fun!!<br /><br />So all in all, The Lion King 1½ isn't a perfect movie, but it's cute and entertaining. I think many Lion King fans will enjoy it and appreciate it for what it is - a fun, lighthearted look at the Lion King masterpiece from our funny friends' perspectives.<br /><br />My IMDb Rating: 7/10. My Yahoo! Grade: B (Good) | positive |
Over-powered mobile suits that can annihilate entire armies - Check! Weapons that hardly need to be aimed and still annihilate everything - Check! Mobile suits based on angels - Check!<br /><br />OK - its a Gundam series. This one, Gundam Wing, has good character development, real-world complexity, interesting ideas and some pretty eye-candy.<br /><br />With characters, the initially weak Relena Dorlan (later Peacecraft, then back to Dorlan) gets stronger and more independent (although is still absolutely besotted with Heero Yuy, the series main character). The aforementioned Heero, initially a cold, hard butcherer, becomes more and more human, while still remaining in-character. And seeing the lost Millardo Peacecraft (whos nomm de guerre is Zechs Marquise) float between OZ, freelance, and command of White Fang shows how some people can really lose themselves in their own creations.<br /><br />The complexity of the political and military situation is also quite good - reflecting how the real world works. However, in 49 half-hour episodes, it does become a bit of a liability in that this complexity isn't used to its full potential.<br /><br />The ideas at the core of the series - the necessity of fighting, the desire for peace, etc - are ones that resonate even today. In retrospect, the series was ahead of its time, what with the "War on Terrorism" and all. But its exploration of these ideas, the monologues, especially those of Treize Kushrenada, is an incredible dramatic piece, forming some of the best writing in the series.<br /><br />But that sometimes good writing is also sometimes extremely poor, which dramatically causes it to lose some of its edge.<br /><br />In terms of eye-candy, which is what this one has in bucketloads, everything from the mobile suits to the battleship Libra (No not the tampons you idiot!) is wells designed, and explodes in big balls of orange (which is bad, because better animation would've had better explosions). But who cares?! Stuff explodes, and thats all that matters.<br /><br />In short though, the sheer complexity of the series means that if you miss out on a few episodes, you've missed out on a lot. The poor writing can leave you cringing, and sometimes the animation makes you go "WTF?!?!" But this is made up for in its classic animation style, its scale, sparks of incredible dialogue, and its more mature exploration that one expects of such Japenese animations. | positive |
I cannot comment on this film without discussing its significance to me personally. As a child bad health prevented me from ever going to a cinema. I first encountered movies at the end of WWII through Roger Manvilles splendid Penguin book "Film", which brought me so much pleasure as my health began to improve that I wish I could buy another copy to re-read today. My introduction to many classics films such as The Battleship Potemkin, Drifters (Grierson's magnificent documentary), Metropolis, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, and Ecstasy; came first through this book and later at my University Art-house cinema. Ecstasy had incurred the wrath of the Vatican, for condoning Eva's desertion of Emil, her subsequent divorce, and the brief swim she took in the buff, but Roger Manville ignored these trivial matters and discussed the film as a triumphant, outstandingly beautiful, visual paean to love - a view echoed by many IMDb users. A very lonely young man, when I saw it, I willingly concurred. No further opportunity to see Ecstasy arose until the introduction of home videos - by then it had become a treasured memory not to be disturbed. Quite recently I finally added Ecstasy to my home video collection and found this assessment very superficial. Ecstasy is much more of a parable on the continuity of human existence, against which individual lives are insignificant - perhaps a tribute to what Bernard Shaw in his aggressively agnostic writings used to term 'The Lifeforce'. <br /><br />Ecstasy portrays a young bride marrying a middle aged man whose sex urge is no longer strong. Disappointed, she returns home and divorces him. Soon after she experiences a strong mutual attraction to a young virile man she meets whilst out horse riding. She makes love for the first time and it is an overwhelming experience. Her former husband cannot face rejection and gives the young man a lift in his car intending that a passing train will kill them both on a level crossing. But the train stops in time and the apparently ill driver is taken to recuperate at a nearby hotel where he later commits suicide by shooting himself. After these exciting climacteric sequences, a bland, predictable and almost inevitable ending emphasises that whilst individual human lives exhibit both joy and tragedy, collectively life continues to carry us all forward in its stream and only through contributing to this stream can we be truly happy. This story is trite, the acting is no more than adequate; and normally such a film would have disappeared into the garbage, as did most of its contemporaries, long ago. What has given Ecstasy its classic status is exceptional cinematography, a continuous lyrical score and very careful loving direction, coupled with something fortuitous but in cinematographic terms very important - it appeared just after the introduction of sound and was probably planned as a silent film. It is sub-titled and its Director has exploited the impact of brief verbal sequences accompanying some sub-titles, and occasionally breaking into the score which so lovingly carries the film forward. This makes it not only almost unique but extremely rewarding to watch. The parable in the tale is stressed continuously but so subtly that only when reflecting after viewing does one become fully aware of it. For example, the names - Eva and Adam; the obsessive behavior of Emil on his wedding night which shows that triviata have become the most important thing in his life and predicate his eventual suicide since he has no adequate purpose to sustain him; the ongoing series of beautiful sequences showing erotic imagery (a bee pollinating a flower, a key entering a lock, a breaking necklace during Eva's virginal lovemaking sequence with Adam, etc.); and the final post-suicide sequences which could have been filmed in many different ways but serve to extol the importance to individuals of performing some type of work that contributes positively to Society, as well as of creating new life to sustain this society after we ourselves pass on. <br /><br />As a 1933 film I would rate this at 9 - even comparing it with contemporary works I would not reduce this below 8. For me the film will always remain a "must see", (although you may feel that my background remarks above indicate some bias in this judgment). Unfortunately in North America contemporary assessments of this film have been distorted by the extreme 1930's reaction to Hedy Kiesler's very brief and relatively unimportant nude scene which she had difficulty living down in Hollywood (some critics, who have clearly not seen such classic films as Hypocrites, Hula, Back to God's Country, Bird of Paradise or some of the early works of D.W. Griffiths and C.B. deMille, have even erroneously referred to this as the first appearance of a nude actress in a feature film). This scene was probably part of the original novel, and the film would have been very little different if the Director had chosen to rewrite it.<br /><br />Two further thoughts; firstly this is a Czech film, released there in 1933. Its final message about hard work generating positive benefits for society must have seemed very superficial to its viewers when a few years later their country became the first victim of Nazi oppression and was virtually destroyed for at least two generations (I do not remember these sequences being screened just after the war when I first saw this film - were they removed from the copy I saw then?). Secondly for me its main message today is that things of real beauty are often very transitory even though their memory may stay with one for a lifetime. We should all be thankful that today some of them can be captured on camera and viewed again at our convenience. | positive |
This film is a great fun. I recommend you watch it yourself and then watch it again with your friends. I did last night and it was fascinating how well Norma Khouri could pull everybody into her world! I did feel a little bit strange watching my friends go through the same roller coaster as I did the first time. But they all thanked me and loved the movie. You know it is a great film if you spend 2 hours after the film talking about the movie! <br /><br />I once saw a con man almost up toNorma Khouri's level, but no where near the same size ring. He fooledtons of very gullible and rich folks at my old Berkeley CA A.A. group where everyone trusts everyone else. He would "sponsor" only people who seemed very well to do. Who knew he would have stolen in excess of 100k(in 1987 when that was real money) after being in town for only 1 month. His victims were very fragile as they were in their first month or week of being sober. He was evil with a great laugh and a great smile on his face.<br /><br />The above crime is nothing compared to what Norma Khouri did to her old neighbor. But I don't want to give anything away.<br /><br />I just found this one night on a late night movie channel,"Showtim" I think. This is always a movie fans greatest experience to be totally tricked into seeing something and having your mind blown. Just drag your friends over to see this and don't tell them a thing. It is a very entertaining film, it moves quickly and never bores you.<br /><br />This should be a international classic for all time. I believe all great movies eventually rise to the top. Time will be very good to this film. I am just sorry no one has heard of it yet,in some ways that makes the surprises even better.<br /><br />The director and editor were fantastic. They deserved winning the best documentary.<br /><br />JUST WATCH THIS FILM! | positive |
The movie was very sweet and heartwarming! I cry almost every time I watch the movie. I would recommend this movie for every one. The movie was so inspiring to me. The actors did a great job of acting, and the movie was very well played and done. The movie was about a little girl who owned a parrot of whom she named Paulie. Paulie had gotten separated from her by her parents because they thought it would be best for her.<br /><br />After Paulie had experienced so many people he ended up in a cage by himself in a basement. Finally this Russian man who had gotten a job at a place as a janitor. Had found Paulie in the basement and Paulie began to talk to him telling him the story of his life. In the end the man helped Paulie reunite with Marie (the little girl who raised Paulie). Love overcame all the obstacles. | positive |
Paperhouse is the most moving and poignant film I've ever seen. Often classed as a "horror movie" this, I believe, is a grave error. Some journo once called it "the thinking person's Nightmare on Elm Street" and while I accept the logic of his conclusion I can't help but think it's a tag that is ill deserved and misleading. Those that can only see horror are truly missing out here and only serves to demonstrate they're really not thinking at all.<br /><br /> In fact, just attempting to classify this wonderful work is probably a bad idea. Quite simply, Paperhouse is perfect in every exquisite detail and will always have a special place in my heart. As someone wiser than me once said, "the film hits you on a completely emotional level", which may go some way to explaining why my comments are so unrelentingly gushing. To be honest, I make no apology for this so if you feel my words are too saccharine for your taste, stop reading now because there's more to come.<br /><br /> It's so rare to find a film that has at its heart the pain and heartache of childhood and the struggle to overcome the dreadful feelings of isolation and loneliness that can completely overwhelm us at this fragile time in our lives. Even more unusual to find child actors who can actually play their roles with the sensitivity and intelligence required to make it all work. In Charlotte Burke and Elliott Spiers we had an inspired piece of casting and the lasting impact of Paperhouse owes much to their ability to portray the melancholy and alienation of childhood (often overlooked) in a seamless and convincing way.<br /><br /> And yet both of these brilliant young stars seemed to have slipped through the grasp of the studios and have somehow faded away.<br /><br /> Add to all this an incredibly talented director (Bernard Rose), imaginative cinematography and the most beautiful and haunting soundtrack you're ever likely to hear and you may start to get an inkling of why I have such affection and affinity for this film that no amount of words can express.<br /><br /> | positive |
And also a wonderful beginning, a real quick start. It keeps you yearning and waiting for is about to come. Unfortunately the high adrenaline dries off quickly, but most certainly after half the movie is over.<br /><br />And it's a shame, because this movie has really good ideas and explores many of them thoroughly. But that is also one of it's faults. By exploring too many things, it get's mixed up into to many things, so in the end you're too confused to follow any plot or characters. It's very dark and moody, but that doesn't help much, if it's also genre hopping just to try to fit any- and everything in it's story! | negative |
I am surprised that there is confusion over the title of this film. Quite obviously, it is an investigation into the nature of modern love. It is suggesting that love is love while the going is good, but one in which people reserve the right to put themselves first, and if the going gets tough, they get out and go onto something else.<br /><br />This observation has generational implications, as it is coming from Generation X, makes comment on Generation X, and in the end is aimed at Generation X. It expresses disappointment that love has transformed from that which the Baby Boomers, the parents of Generation X, had engendered in their marriages and family lives, and which gave Generation X the innocent and bountiful childhood it ultimately enjoyed.<br /><br />The Generation X attitude to love is, of course, flippant, but as decisions are made and commitments are broken, the biggest casualty are the children of Generation X. This is made clear at the end of the film, and was so pungent I took a week to recover from the shock I received from this epiphany. | positive |
Such a masterpiece as the first of these two Snowy River films was, the sequel to The Man From Snowy River is everything that a follow-up should be. It does not tread on the toes of its predecessor, preferring to leave the legend that was the first film live on in some unique immortality.<br /><br />The Man From Snowy River II is based upon the return of Jim Craig to the Snowy River country after a three year absence. The film subtly tells a tale of change in the nineteenth century, of Australian history, legend and horses. The storyline demonstrates a touch of Hollywood in lighter shades, an aspect that was absolutely absent in the first film, yet this blends uniquely with the a distinct sense of Australian patriotism. The plot is far more vibrant than the first film, and much more showy, with particular aspects of the previous incorporated into the film, yet The Man From Snowy River II possesses every essential characteristic of the first film; sensationally beautiful cinematography, a stunning focus of the Australian high country, the second most impressive footage of horses ever filmed, and a fantastic and deeply moving soundtrack by Bruce Rowland which equals the first in every way. Geoff Burrowes has done a superb job with this film, and it is highly worthy of recognition, especially with regard to the quality of the Australian Film Industry. The lead cast, from Tom Burlinson to Sigrid Thornton, and a well-replaced Brian Dennehy, carry off their parts with as much passion and distinction as the first film. As far as sequels can go, The Man From Snowy River II is a masterpiece; a deeply moving and inspirational experience yet again. | positive |
As a physicist, talk about blackholes and cosmology gets my heart racing. However I found this presentation too slow and not packed with enough information for the interested layman (who is most likely to see it). If you have more than a passing curiosity in this sort of stuff, go to the library and check out some books. You will find they explain current scientific cosmologies with far more detail while at the same time filling you with more of a sense of wonder than this movie does. Also to set the record straight: Hawking is NOT considered the "greatest mind" or the world's "smartest person" as commonly asserted even among the user reviews here at the IMDb. Hawking himself has commented that "It is rubbish. It is just media hype. They needed somebody to fill the role model of disabled genius. At least I'm disabled." To be fair, he is probably a genius but among history's greatest scientists, people like Einstein, Newton, Gauss, and many others easily are even more highly regarded. This is not to disrespect Hawking who is a undoubtedly a great scientist but rather not to disrespect others who have done even more than he has. Anyhow, see the movie if you are truly into science. But if not, I think it would be boring for you. | negative |
This film has a special place in my heart as the worst movie I have ever seen. It is about as fun as doing hard manual labor with stomach cramps. The movie starts out bad (I would rate the first few minutes of the film a 1/10) and then it get progressively worse, minute by minute. The only way to rate it at all would be some kind of abyssmal spiraling negative number that grows for ninety, long minutes. Unfunny is not a real word but it best describes the humor in this video. Somehow the video manages even to make cute, scantily clad females and sex look grotesque and distasteful. This movie is amazingly bad. I would say it would be better to be locked up with the TITANIC theme playing over and over and with Buscemi's character from ESCAPE FROM LA droning on in your ear than to watch this movie. The sequels are not nearly as bad. If you have to rent a Troma film, get Tromeo and Juliette or Combat Shock. I would rather watch 5 Tony Little infomercials back to back than to see CLASS of NUKEM HIGH again. Don't get me wrong, it took some kind of criminal genius to make a movie this terrible and if ever a movie deserved an award for being awful, this is it. | negative |
This one of those social dramas that WB knew how to put together and were guaranteed boxoffice hits in the thirties. This early "dead end kids" are sent to a reform school where they are mistreated. Cagney, a gangster as part of a deal is appointed as the commissioner of the school. He doesn't take it seriously at first but he changes and makes the necessary changes to improve the lives of the boys. The idea is to let the boys rule and administer their community. Whether this is sound social reform is beyond my belief but it's a movie. It's a lot like Boys Town with a slight darker tone. A useless happy ending deluges what impact the scene prior hard but is still good. WB would later make this same movies with Bogart in the Cagney/fatherly role. | positive |
I enjoyed this film and after it finished it still makes you think about it. I believe Jeremy Brett is brilliant in this role although his "death" acting was a little over the top, but as its Jeremy Brett I didn't mind.<br /><br />This is a good piece of drama and does follow Oscar Wildes novel very closely. If you enjoy this film then I recommend you also watch "An Ideal Husband" with Jeremy Brett as Lord Goring.<br /><br />This film gives a great insight into Oscar Wildes way of thinking.And while watching it the viewer is reminded of how in a way Dorian Grey is Lord Alfred 'bosie' Douglas and Basil Halward is Oscar Wilde. | positive |
At first glance of this mini... I was a bit disappointed that Tommy Lee Jones and Anjelica Huston didn't return to the cast. Both John Voight and Barbara Hershey did commendable jobs replacing very important characters for the continuing saga of this legendary Epic Western. <br /><br />Cherokee Jack Jackson (Haysbert) played an excellent bad guy, and Louis Gossett Jr. was, as always, true to form with his excellent acting skills.<br /><br />The drama that seemed true to life in many scenes, including one of the best, where the valiant shoot-out ended with Ranger Walker being killed made me feel that I was actually in the film. Return to Lonesome Dove was to me, almost up to the quality of the first of the series. The next 2 follow ups with James Garner as Call just didn't make it for me. And that Lorena marries Pea Eye? How the heck did that get in their? That was a total mismatch of characters. The first 2 of the series made the Epic story, the next 2 in no way were of the same quality.<br /><br />Now, if the first 2 could be remastered in Dolby Digital and an Anamorphic presentation, the films could be where they should have been like the movies of today. | positive |
It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week. <br /><br />This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'. | negative |
It was a Sunday night and I was waiting for the advertised movie on TV. They said it was a comedy! The movie started, 10 minutes passed, after that 30 minutes and I didn't laugh not even once. The fact is that the movie ended and I didn't get even on echance to laugh. PLEASE, someone tickle me, I lost 90 minutes for nothing. | negative |
Like all of the very earliest films, this "movie" is very, very short--lasting about one minute! So, because of its brevity, it's not really possible to compare it to more modern films. But, for its time, it's actually a very remarkable film. Much of this is because the prints were hand painted--making Annabelle appear red and other colors as she does her amazing dance. I've actually seen two different versions--one where she is red and another where she changes color throughout. I think the red one depicted on the DVD "The Great Train Robbery and Other Primary Works" is the best of them. The dance itself is very hypnotic and much like a piece of amazing performance art. And, unlike other one minute (or less) films of the day, this one is one I could see repeatedly--it's just that visually compelling and odd.<br /><br />If you want to see it online, there is a 36 second version on Google Video (type in "serpentine dance"). | positive |
This film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10 | negative |
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.<br /><br />In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals. | negative |
I'd just like to say that i've seen this film twice now and i love it! The acting is great and even though it is a similar plot to "Raise Your Voice" I think that the plot never gets boring for people who like that kind of thing. It has some great lessons in it and shows us that we can do anything if we try. An incredible film. I am sure that this is one i will be watching for a long time to come. Even though Britney Spears write the book it is quite a realistic plot, maybe not about the falling in love part, but the part about being different and struggling but coming out best in the end is very true to real life. The only minor criticism is why is the main girl in these films always beautiful? Do you really think that Holly would have met the perfect guy of her dreams if she was ugly or average? I doubt it.. | positive |
The big problem is where to begin as this movie needs your attention the forthcoming two hours and you better not miss some minutes for getting a coke as there is a danger you can't follow. But good there is also a pause-button. Bruce Willis must travel into a timemachine to find out some antivirus for a virus that made animals rule over the world in 1996. Thanks to some mistakes he first ends up in 1990, then in the First World War and how messed up it all might look like, Terry Gilliam comes up with what must be one of the most intelligent scripts ever. This ex-Monty Phyton man knows exactly how genius SF-stories has to be told like and his choice of cast couldn't have been any better, there is the lunatic Brad Pitt (his performance in the asylum is memorable) and a superb Bruce Willis who proves he is more than some Schwarzenegger-wanna be. It's a movie you can watch over and over again as the script is so weird and complicated (and yet you can follow) that every view gives you other surprises. One of my big favourites. | positive |
Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.<br /><br />Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.<br /><br />It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role. | negative |
The first time my best friend and I sat down to watch this movie, we were watching it for Alex Winter of "Bill & Ted's" fame. We didn't know what to expect other than who and what it was about.<br /><br />By the time the movie was over, we knew that it was love at first sight. This movie, while not completely historically accurate, was and is the best one of its genre. I have seen other movies depicting the history of this famous summer and in my opinion, none of the others can compare. It fibbed a little at certain details, but those parts did not take away from the sheer elegance and romance of the story. I have seen the other movies about this summer and I find most of them to be good, but none as captivating as this one.<br /><br />"Haunted Summer" has the qualities of a painting. The colors and settings seem to be something one would find on a canvas, framed and hung in a museum or on the walls of an eccentric's home. The costumes were gorgeous and, despite not being the most comfortable clothes in the world, made me want to find a seamstress to create such garb for myself. The whole movie was set on the picturesque Lake Geneva (where I hope to one day go because of seeing this movie) and the serenity that these historical figures found there.<br /><br />This movie shows, besides the tranquility found by all the escapees of England's harsh judgements, the strangeness that surrounded this adventure as well. Yes, there were drugs. It was a fairly common practice during that time, a time when drugs were not illegal. And the taking of laudanum (the liquid form of opium) was medicinal as well as recreational. Shelley suffered from consumption. Lord Byron suffered the pains of a clubbed foot. It was not surprising that there would be prescriptions of the strong drugs that were in their possession during that summer. And they were poets during a time when experience was the key. There was no time for prudish caution. Passion and experience were a big part of the Romantic Era. And out of the thoughts and discussions of science, religion and philosophy came the creation of a legend: "Frankenstein."<br /><br />Yes, in this movie, we see the beautiful and liberated Mary Godwin (not married to Shelley at that time) played by beautiful and talented Alice Krige. She is the control factor to all that goes on until she, too, gives in to experience. But she stands her ground and experiences things on her own terms. As was the strength that she inherited from her mother and father.<br /><br />The actors and actresses in this were perfect for the parts they played. The music fitting. The direction captured the essence of the summer, as I've read about it. This movie was based on a wonderful book "Haunted Summer" by Anne Edwards. If you like this movie, read the book. The author takes the story from what she was able to put together from the actual journals of Mary Godwin Shelley and the other participants of this story.<br /><br />If you are a person who loves history (even the little inaccuracies from time to time) and romance and the gothic, then this is a movie for you. It shows the birth of the birth of the monster, which even today teaches us about the morals of "playing God."<br /><br />A definite must see movie! | positive |
I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.<br /><br />The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away. | negative |
Live action version of Dragonball via Taiwan.<br /><br />Evil lord comes to earth to get the seven magic dragon balls...er pearls which when brought together will cause a dragon to appear and grant your wish. Lots of action and bad comedy ensue.<br /><br />What can I say that "the best way to watch this film is with lots of drunk but witty friends" doesn't? I don't know. This is a really bad but funny in the way that really bad movies can be. Come on this is one of the few martial arts films I've ever seen where you actually see the wires. Its a live action cartoon and not so far removed from what I've seen of the show that it makes me fearful for the big budget American version now filming.<br /><br />If you have some drunk friends and feel like picking on a movie see this film. If you're going to see it sober (like me) avoid it. | negative |
My favorite quote from Crow was, when the car was going off the cliff, "The movie is so bad, even the car wants to get out of it!"<br /><br />This had to be the funniest movie I have ever seen. It was seriously out there to scare you, which makes it even funnier! If it weren't for Mystery Science Theater I wouldn't be here today! :-P | negative |
This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?! | negative |
Be warned! <br /><br />This is crap that other crap won't even deign to be in company with because it's beneath them! Okay, got that out of the way, let me say something more substantive.<br /><br />I've seen Ashes of Time a very long time ago thinking it was a fresh take on the material which is based on a highly revered wuxia tome of a novel due to the emerging reputation of the director, Wong Kar Wai. Well, despite of all of that WKW hasn't succeeded at adapting the novel on screen according to a lot of wuxia fans; mostly it is just shots of dripping water, beads of sweats, legs of horses running, etc. I couldn't sit through most of the movie.<br /><br />Fast forward many years later when I wanted to give Mr. Wong's movies another shot after hearing many praises, especially from Cannes. I was intrigued by his latest, 2046. A friend told me to start w/ Chungking Express because it is his most accessible movies. So wrong! I was just p.o. that I got duped into wasting my time and money on this piece of pretentious nothingness. Some professional reviewers mentioned it as a meditation on alienation and loneliness in a modern big city, blah, blah, blah. It's all fine if the director has a point of view with something to say as to why these things happen and tell it. But no, he merely shows what is. Faye Wong's acting is very typical of Hong Kong's style: garbled enunciation, deer in the headlight wide eye expression, try to be cute and girlish kind of acting; the rest of the cast is equally uninspired.<br /><br />I think the word, Auteur, is a euphemism for a director who tries something new and different, which is to be applauded, but not one who hasn't yet mastered the art of cinematic story telling, which is what Mr. Wong is, for the last 17 years! | negative |
The most impressive thing about 'Anemic Cinema' is its title: an anagram which is very nearly also a palindrome. Unfortunately, it only works in American English, since in Britain 'anaemic' is spelt differently.<br /><br />I've always found the dilettante Man Ray and his artistic efforts to be deeply pretentious, and I've never understood why his work attracts so much attention. Apart from his Rayographs (which he invented by accident, and which are merely direct-contact photo prints), his one real contribution to culture seems to be that he was the first photographer to depict female nudity in a manner that was accepted as art rather than as porn. But surely this had to happen eventually, and there's no real reason why Ray deserves the credit. The critical reaction to Man Ray reminds me of the story about the Emperor's New Clothes.<br /><br />Back in the early 1960s, the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' opened each episode with a shot of revolving concentric circles in black and white. There's an image in 'Anemic Cinema' which is so similar, I wonder if 'Twilight Zone' borrowed it from this film. The main difference is that the revolving image here is a black and white spiral. Indeed, if ever there was any movie that deserves to be described as a spiral, this one is it. Throughout 'Anemic Cinema', we're treated(?) to shots of a revolving disc containing words (in French) moving in a spiral. The effect is vertiginous, and the texts -- about incest and Eskimos -- are nearly Dada in their meaninglessness. I did laugh at one clever sexual pun.<br /><br />The emperor is naked, folks, and this movie just barely rates 2 points out of 10. Au suivant! | negative |
An American woman, her European husband and children return to her mother's home in "Watch on the Rhine," a 1943 film based on the play by Lillian Hellman, and starring Paul Lukas (whom I believe is repeating his stage role here), Bette Davis, Lucile Watson, George Coulouris, Geraldine Fitzgerald, and Donald Woods. An anti-Fascist, a worker in the underground movement, many times injured, and wanted by the Nazis, Kurt Muller (Lukas) is in need of a long vacation on the estate of his wealthy mother-in-law. But he finds out that there is truly no escape as one of the houseguests (Coulouris) is suspicious as to his true identity and more than willing to sell him out.<br /><br />Great performances abound in this film, written very much to put forth Lillian Hellman's liberal point of view. It was certainly a powerful propaganda vehicle at the time it was released, as the evils of war and what was happening to people in other countries reach into safe American homes. The movie's big controversy today is that Paul Lukas won an Oscar over Humphrey Bogart in "Casablanca." Humphrey Bogart was a wonderful screen presence and a fabulous Rick, but Lukas is transcendent as Kurt. The monologue he has about the need to kill is gut-wrenching, just to mention one scene.<br /><br />Though this isn't what one thinks of as a Bette Davis movie, she gives a masterful performance here as Kurt's loyal and loving wife, Sara. Her acting tugs at the heart, and the love scenes between Kurt and Sara are beautiful and tender.<br /><br />The last half hour of the film had me in tears with the honesty of the emotions. Lillian Hellman is not everyone's cup of tea, but unlike "The Little Foxes," she has written some truly sympathetic, wonderful characters and a fine story given A casting and production values by Warner Brothers. Highly recommended. | positive |
Films about the mundane are often the most interesting of all films to me, in the hands of an insightful artist who examines all the twisted little details of the mundane. The French cinema seems to often be very good at this sort of thing, and I love the French cinema.<br /><br />This film was about the mundane. It didn't have a much of a plot. It was just characters who lived in a town, very normal people, and stuff just happened. But it wasn't very interesting stuff, and it wasn't examined very insightfully. The film did capture a bit of a mood, but it wasn't a particularly captivating mood. And while I can't think of much that the film did specifically wrong, it failed on just about every level to do anything right.<br /><br />There were a lot of characters in this film. A lot of them kind of looked alike, so it was hard to figure out who was who, and what were their relations to one another. I don't mind putting some effort into understanding a film, or even watching an especially complex film more than one time to iron out the details, but this one was a puzzle not worth the solving for me.<br /><br />The only good thing I can really say about this film is that the cinematography was pleasant--functional, not brilliant, but pleasant. The camera often captured some nice postcard-type shots. But it rarely found the really interesting little details.<br /><br />I've seen a handful of not-so-good films so far at the Seattle International Film Festival, but this was the only one that failed to get any applause when the credits rolled. I sensed a big collective sigh of relief when the film was finally over. But I suppose there are probably some people out there who would like it.<br /><br />4/10 | negative |
Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.<br /><br />The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).<br /><br />What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) ! <br /><br />I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.<br /><br />The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).<br /><br />The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).<br /><br />It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't. | negative |
At least the jingle by Tim Finn was melodic. Roberts is the his usual inept self. Characters are inconsistent, dull, purposeless. Roberts changes his accent even within one line. | negative |
If you've ever seen the trailer for the film "The Recruit" with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino, you'll never have to see that film. Sadly, Renaissance has had similarly revelatory trailer makers.<br /><br />The story of Renaissance is about a detective investigating the kidnapping of a young woman and medical researcher. The setting is a futuristic Paris, and science fiction elements feature throughout. The special thing about Renaissance, though, is its visual style, and not its story. Renaissance is 3D computer animation, like Final Fantasy, but highly stylised into black and white with ultra sharp contrasts. The result looks stunning (although the problems of 3D animation of human beings are still noticeable from time to tome: slightly robotic movements, slightly wooden facial acting, etc) As a highly stylised, beautiful film noir, Renaissance succeeds at stunning the audience, especially visually. The story and writing, though, are not quite at the same level of quality as the visuals. It's not a bad story (and presumably, if you haven't seen the trailer, it's a lot more exciting than it was for me). But it is a story that isn't highly original, and verges on the corny. A few lines of dialogue were painfully corny, making the writing sound like a beginner's first efforts.<br /><br />I will definitely recommend Renaissance to friends. It's unlike anything I've seen before, visually, and I believe its originality alone makes it a worthwhile experience. It is also a watchable story, even if it isn't perfect. | positive |
I'm a Don Johnson fan, but this is undoubtedly the WORST movie, done by anybody, that I've ever seen. The acting was bad, as was the cinematography. Don should stick to doing action, because as The King, he just didn't cut it. | negative |
Thank god ABC picked this up instead of Fox. The best description (for those in the know) is really Wonderfalls meets Dead Like Me in the best way possible.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether an experience with death and destiny early in life makes me a fan of Brian Fuller but I certainly enjoy his productions. I also enjoy checkered floors, pies, talking toys, gravelings and other mischievous items :) While a bit "Burtonesque", I certainly think this enjoys its own niche that doesn't require J Depp or HB Carter to be a wonderfully imaginative playground. Here we can find the joys and sorrows of childhood and adulthood crashing into each and actually making sense and making us want to live life to the fullest! | positive |
I didn't buy this, I didn't rent this, it was on PPV and someone burned a copy of it and loaned it to me, so at least I wasted no money on it. For someone that did Darkness, the Nameless, Devil's Backbone, this is a pretty lame film. Seems to have something to do with a bunch of girls that were at a convent back in the day and now they're all grown up and they're being pursued and killed one by one by a nun that comes out of the kitchen sink, the toilet, and even manages to negotiate the revolving doors in a hotel. And what makes this nun so mean and nasty (and wet?) I dunno, this was so boring that at some point about halfway through I just stopped it, put it away, and watched something else. Wasn't even interested in finding out, really. Oh sure, there's some lovely young ladies to look at but hey, are two of them lesbians? I guess, there's a picture on the bedside table of one young lady's bedroom and what self-respecting horror movie wouldn't be complete these days without a lesbian couple? Yeah whatever. 2 out of 10, if you want to see a worthwhile nun horror movie try "Desecration", "Dead Waters", or "The Convent" (and that's the one with Adrienne Barbeau, by the way, not the one with John Malkovich). | negative |
I caught this movie on local t.v. at about 4:30 a.m. I didn't have expectations for it but after the opening credits I knew I was into something good.<br /><br />There are situations that are left for your interpretation to "find out" what really happened so your attention is a key factor.<br /><br />The whole psychological thriller situation deals a lot with character development and the way things are executed by the main character.<br /><br />Your sub-conscience also plays an important part because through a series of events and dialogs you will be able to make a correct interpretation and generate an opinion.<br /><br />The technical aspects are very good. Really good in fact. Kelly Overtone is extremely sexy and she's candy for the eye although she's most of the time in her white clothes.<br /><br />The fear factor is almost inexistent but there's plenty of mystery and tension to dig from.<br /><br />I would recommend it for those who enjoy supernatural and psychological thrillers. | positive |
To be honest, this film is another in a series of huge disappointments...most of these so-called "masters of horror" films are only horrifying in terms of their sub-par effects and laughable story lines...aside from Ron Perlman, everyone else in this film cannot act to save their life...the gunshots sounded like someone was playing Bop-it under the boom mike or something, and looked completely unrealistic...overall, this film is about as scary as Home Alone...the only good masters are Cigarette Burns, Jennifer, and maybe Pelts...I don't know how these directors can sleep at night knowing that they have ruined the very genre that some of them used to actually understand... | negative |
This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.<br /><br />Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.<br /><br />Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film. | negative |
When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.<br /><br />Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verité. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.<br /><br />It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.<br /><br />But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do. | positive |
*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one. | negative |
Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!<br /><br />This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.<br /><br />Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.<br /><br />Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.<br /><br />Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.<br /><br />Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).<br /><br />Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies. | negative |
I recently purchased Lost Horizon on ebay, having vivid memories of the Things I Will Not Miss number from childhood (I am an ancient 29). I also recently finished the novel upon which it is based. I was so pleasantly surprised to find a genuine hidden treasure. A wonderful cast brings such warmth and depth to a beautifully simple and elegantly told story, subtly updated from the original film (and by now quite a separate entity to the far more intellectual and thought provoking book by James Hilton). Sally Kellerman in particular has a radiant presence as the suicidal neurotic Sally Hughes, who gradually warms to the charms of Shangri-La. Only Liv Ullmann flounders in her wooden portrayal of the schoolteacher (a role far more suited to a Julie Andrews type. The fact that Finch, Ullmann and Hussey are all dubbed isn't important as it is almost impossible to tell. The songs DO vary in quality, the music being far superior to the lyrics but it is still a vibrant and engrossing film that really deserves a proper DVD release and a lot more recognition. | positive |
Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality. | negative |
I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.<br /><br />In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a "princes" regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.<br /><br />In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.<br /><br />Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.<br /><br />The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.<br /><br />And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.<br /><br />Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.<br /><br />There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.<br /><br />The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.<br /><br />I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad! | negative |
I first saw this movie back in 1994 or '95 during my freshman year in high school when it was on Lifetime. After I first saw it, I thought it was wonderful. Sure, it may not have run longer, but it is as accurate as can be in my own opinion (regardless of what anyone else may think). Cynthia Gibb was great at portraying Karen, and Mitchell Anderson was okay as Richard. Louise Fletcher (Yes, who played Nurse Ratched in 1975's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") was fine as well, but I found her version of Agnes (Karen and Richard's mother) to be a little bit of a control freak. I am an EXTREMELY HUGE fan of the Carpenters, and I believe that Karen's voice was and still is so wonderful. It really saddens me about the fact that she is gone and had left this earth too soon, but thanks to the never ending popularity of her music and her angelic voice, the music will live on. Anyway, back on track to this movie, it really is a mystery to me and possibly other people (fans and non-fans of the Carpenters) as to what caused Karen to end up getting this problem with her health. Was it the media that was responsible or was it just Karen's decision? I would not believe that it was her decision. It could have been the media from one article that was printed out about her somewhere in '70, when their hit "Close to You" came out (from what was shown in the film). There are some other moments in the movie as well. Richard's struggle with drugs, and Karen's brief marriage. I did not hear about her loss in February of 1983, as I was not yet into watching the news; I had found out years later. I don't know if there will be another movie about the Carpenters or Karen made in the future, but until then, this movie will do fine. I will say this though: If Karen had disregarded the false details of that article or any future articles that might have been published with similar content calling her "chubby" (which must have been quite an insult), she would still be here on this earth today. I know that she is in Heaven and probably entertaining everyone with her beautiful voice. God bless you, Karen!! | positive |
I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.<br /><br />The film is about Three World War II veteran's who come home together on a plane and all by chance live in the same town. They all are reunited with their families.<br /><br />The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) has to adapt to his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and Children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) being different than before he left for the war.<br /><br />The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews in an excellant role) has to find a good job and adapt to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.<br /><br />The third man Has a much more harder adaptation to make. Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his excellant oscar role)He has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands. All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scences. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.<br /><br />This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.<br /><br />If I was asked to pick a favorite film I would pick this one.<br /><br />Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 11.<br /><br />So the next time you rent a movie rent this one you won't regret it. | positive |
I will admit that I did not give this movie much of a chance. I decided pretty early on that this just wasn't my kind of movie.<br /><br />For the most part, it has an excellent look in terms of its cinematography. The scenes of early 70's Manhattan look very good, as does the lead actress. It is a very crisp black and white, which could almost make the movie feel undated and fresh. However, some of the other techniques the filmmakers employ shoot that prospect all to hell. The disjointed editing is VERY late-60's, somewhere between surrealism and new wave. The story also feels like it came from a very specific time, somewhere between free love idealism and artsy experimentation.<br /><br />The film follows a young girl around the city as she looks for a man who she had anonymous phone sex with. As she meets other odd characters, she reveals her quirks and they reveal theirs. The movie seems to be meant as an off-the-wall, irreverent comedy, but adds an avant-garde feel. I would expect that if you like Andy Warhol movies, you would be very excited to discover The Telephone Book.<br /><br />Some problems I had: Near the end of the movie, one character tells a rambling anecdote that lasts over twelve minutes-brutal to sit through. Also, there is a very explicit animation sequence that I found gross and juvenile that serves as the film's climax. I did laugh out loud four or five times, and I liked the ending (minus the flat-out disgusting animation). And when the film switched to color for the final phone-booth-at-night sequence, I actually liked the way it looked even better. It ended up being one of those experiences where I felt like I could have really liked it if it been a little different. But this is what the filmmakers gave us. It is obscure, artsy, and way left of the dial, but none of those are reasons to recommend it on their own. I didn't find it to be unique or creative so much as forced and pretentious. | negative |
A wonderful film to watch with astonishing scenes and talented actors, such as Misa Shimizu and Nagiko Tono. After 15 minutes of watching, your eyes get locked on the screen and you do nothing but breathing in the atmosphere of the film waiting what the destiny will bring to the characters. This film makes you leave your position as a standard audience, it takes you in, it makes you a part of the story... Costumes and settings are brilliant; especially the district of the okiyas is skillfully built. It is definitely not very Akira Kurosawa, however it still gets a lot from the master, especially the stylistic story telling tells us we're in a distinguished land of cinema which is quite far from hollywoodish flamboyance. | positive |
I watched this movie on LOGO television today. I was absolutely enthralled by the powerful messages and plot line within this film. I don't want to spoil it. I will say this, I related to the inner struggle of Aaron and his upbringing. As a gay man growing up in a small town, I related SO well to the "big secret" and the choices I made. This movie has made a HUGE impact on me and I plan on buying a copy of it in the very near future for my personal library. I no more than finished the movie and began calling my friends to recommend it. It had that profound of an effect on me. To those who read this comment. WATCH it. Try to have as little distraction as possible. Also,keep an open mind. This is not a film that can be viewed like a Disney film or the movie of the week. Instead, take the time to watch and actively LISTEN to the dialog as well as read between the lines and get involved in the plot. You may find yourself in tears. Not since "Steel Magnolias" have I been moved to tears by a film. This one did just that. Thank you to the cast and writer and crew for producing an emotionally charged romantic film about homosexuality and religion. It has been LONG overdue. | positive |
This is one of the best crime-drama movies during the late 1990s. It was filled with a great cast, a powerful storyline, and many of the players involved gave great performances. Pacino was great; he should have been nominated for something. John Cusack was good too, as long as the viewer doesn't mind his Louuu-siana accent. He may come off as annoying if you can't stand this dialect. The way that Pacino's character interacted with Cusack's character was believable, dramatic, and slightly comical at times. Danny Aiello was superb as always. David Paymer was great in a supporting role. Bridget Fonda was good but not memorable. There were times when this picture mentioned so many characters, probably too many. It may take a second viewing to remember, "which Zapatti was which?" After so many cross-references, one has to stop and think just to recap. The ending didn't have a lot of sting. It was built up for so long and then was a bit of a letdown. This was one of the few problems with the film. Since the movie wasn't billed as a "huge, blockbuster" big screen hit, it made some forget that this movie even existed. Pacino and Aiello were great but the film's lack of "splash" in the theaters may have accounted for no nominations. It was semi-successful in the home market, and viewers are still learning that this title is out there. Made in 1996, it still stands up today and will remain popular for many years to come.<br /><br />So, make yourself some lemon pudding (you'll see) and see this movie! | positive |
How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer | negative |
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.<br /><br />I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity. <br /><br />The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him. | negative |
80's sleazy (glam)rock is like 90's house music or current boybands: it's boring and has no ideas or ideals. The only thing that makes it a bit 'cult' nowadays is that it's a long time ago, so we can laugh at its sillyness. Too bad 'Rock Star' has no laughs at all, as it must be one of the most boring movies of recent years.<br /><br />Chris (Mark Wahlberg) is singer of a Steel Dragon tribute band. When he's kicked of the band at the same time the real Steel Dragon singer is kicked of as well, he becomes the next lead singer. You already know how this is gonna end up at that time, with Chris losing it with sex, drugs and r&r and forgetting about his long-time girlfriend/manager, Emily (Jennifer Aniston).<br /><br />There's way too much (boring) music in this standard formula-packed excuse for a movie and should be avoided for it at all cost. Watch the (over-rated, but still more fun) Almost Famous instead, or even better, a movie about real people playing real music having real emotions, That Thing You Do.<br /><br />What a stinker. 2/10. | negative |
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.<br /><br />His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.<br /><br />Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?<br /><br />There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.<br /><br />A waste of two hours of my life. | negative |
... and in *no way* as clean, logical, and understandable as in pictured in that pathetic sum of tired Hollywood cliches.<br /><br />I'm 27, and I've spent 16 years of my life struggling through delusional phobia and paranoid hallucinations. Like the main character in the film, I was successful mainly because of logic : because I kept thinking over and over to keep delusion away from reality, and to know what was really going on and what wasn't. In the end, I was really successful because of medication, by the way, but I certainly escaped madness because I knew before I took medication the difference between what was real and what wasn't.<br /><br />So, I feel entitled to tell you that this movie is a total fraud. Not only does it cheat with the main character's story (who wasn't faithful to his wife, who was bisexual - something really important here), but mostly, it shows a comforting, tamed view of schizophrenia - which is entirely missing the point.<br /><br />Schizophrenia is a mind structure, not a disease. A schizophrenic *isn't* a "normal man with a disease", it's someone who from early on views and feels things differently from most people : for him, things like time, space, and people's personalities aren't solid things. He feels it can be bent, it can change, it can mutate, and maybe even disappear. To cope with this, a schizophrenic has a rich, very imaginative inner world which "normal" people don't expect - but he's trapped in it because he can't relate with most people, and his world gets poorer and poorer until he finishes in a blank, delusive dead end.<br /><br />This is very different to what's depicted in this ridiculous "cure", tear-jerking movie. It should be violently frightening. People other than the main character should appear strange, weird and absurd, like in Lynch's "Eraserhead", for example. There should be *really* impressive, weird, gross hallucinations, because that's what schizophrenia is all about. It's not about *details*.<br /><br />I mean, watch "Naked Lunch", "Lost Highway", read P.K. Dick's "Martian Time-Split" or "Ubik", DO watch "The Cell", "Perfect Blue", "Dark City", or play "American McGee's Alice" on PC, and you may have a vague idea of what it's like. Don't watch the "feel good" movie of the month, with banal situations, cleaned characters and visuals, and stupid plot tricks. "The Cell" is the most accurate movie about a schizophrenic's mind, his visions and his inner consistency - it's violent, weird, confusing, and very, very scary.<br /><br />Once again, Schizophrenia isn't about details, it's not a neat, tame trick played to you. It jumps in your face and won't let you go : walls fall apart, people turn into strange hostile creatures, you feel like you go backward in time, you're not sure you're who you think you are, everything feels... strange, unnatural. Believe me, this is much much more than what's depicted in this soap-like melodrama | negative |
I loved this movie. Not because of the romantic story lines between women, but for the visualization of human strength, despair, and liberation. This film is a must see. Entertaining! Emotional! Captivating! All the characters are very well written and portrayed by some very talented actors. This story is a story of self discovery and sexual awakening. A journey of the mind, body and soul. You find yourself identifying with the characters and at some points, even the storyline. <br /><br />I do have to say that I recommend watching the movie first, then read the book. If you read the book first, you will be slightly disappointed. The screenplay adaption cut out a lot and some things were changed. Some for the better and some for the worst. | positive |
I hardly know where to begin in writing about this gem, except to say that it represents young Buster Keaton at the peak of his powers and must certainly rank with the half-dozen best short comedies ever made. THE GOAT is twenty minutes of smoothly paced, expertly photographed, beautifully executed gags; two reels of non-stop comic invention driven by an unmistakable undercurrent of paranoia and yet somehow leading to a happy ending -- which wasn't always the way with Buster's comedies. (See COPS for one case where Fatalism ultimately got the better of him, or ONE WEEK for the victory of Defeatism.) If I had to describe this film in one word I'd call it "effortless," but if I were permitted two I'd call it "seemingly effortless," for surely a lot of hard labor goes into the making of any comic opus that unfolds with such sublime ease. Still, they didn't call him the Great Stone Face for nothing: Buster never let the public see him sweat.<br /><br />A sardonic title card tells us that our opening sequence is set "along Millionaires' Row," i.e. on a bread line in a grim urban setting, where Buster waits patiently at the back of the line and, as a result, doesn't get fed. But it needs to be emphasized that not for one moment does he play for pathos; Buster has our sympathy, but he never asks for it. Before long, through a series of accidents, coincidences and absurd misunderstandings, Buster is believed to be an escaped killer named Dead Shot Dan and is being pursued by every cop for miles around, and yet while he's clearly dismayed by this turn of events there is never a hint of self-pity or even surprise; we get the sense he always knew that this is what life would have in store for him, and that he hasn't time to feel sorry for himself anyway, he has to figure out new ways to dodge those cops and escape from the latest trap.<br /><br />Just as Buster refrains from playing for sympathy he never seems to strain for laughs either, which is especially impressive because THE GOAT must be one of the most laugh-packed short comedies in existence. This is the film that features that iconic shot of Buster riding a train's cow-catcher right up to the very lens of the camera, which isn't a gag exactly but sure is laugh-provoking in its own strange way. Meanwhile, there are gags involving guns, dogs, cops, an incredibly furry mustache, and a clay statue of a horse that melts under Buster's weight (a surreal sight indeed), but some of the biggest boffos are saved for the finale when Buster is trying to elude his primary nemesis, Big Joe Roberts, a rotund cop who also happens to be the father of leading lady Virginia Fox. Trapped in Big Joe's dining room, Buster leap-frogs over him and sails through a transom, turns a phone-booth into an elevator and pretends to disappear, and eventually uses the elevator itself to rid himself of his pursuer and win the girl in time for one last fade-out gag.<br /><br />To say more would be a disservice to first-time viewers. I only wish I could see this film in a theater full of people who'd never seen it before, and float on the laughter. Live musical accompaniment would be nice too; and incidentally the musical score supplied by Kino for their home video/DVD version of THE GOAT is first-rate, serving as icing on an already tasty cake. | positive |
One of my all-time favourite movies. Nothing can beat watching this movie for the first time. If I could go back in time and erase my memory or suffer from momentary amnesia I would so I could enjoy this movie as much as I did that very first time. It's still enjoyable second and third times round but I found myself appreciating the humour more as the shocks and thrills weren't unexpected. If you want a see a film that you truly won't be able to predict the ending of then I highly recommend this film. Its chilling, shocking, full of suspense and there's also loads of humour to help you through it too. If you watch this film and don't love it I truly question your sanity! | positive |
The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as "pure energy," and then sending it back complete to a "target area." There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, "Devil Doll") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to. <br /><br />During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist "Lembach" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself "projected" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a "pork roast" with the power to electrocute people. <br /><br />With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well. <br /><br />In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all. <br /><br />Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see. | negative |
THE YOUNG VICTORIA is a elegantly costumed and reproduced bit of history that benefits from some fine settings, solid direction by Jean-Marc Vallée of stalwart Julian Fellowes' version of the youthful lass who was to become England's longest reigning monarch - Victoria. Much of the early portion of the film, that part when Victoria is a child whose ascent to the throne is contested by her mother (Miranda Richardson) and Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) seems to drag and get lost in the multiple costumes and scenery variations. But once Victoria (Emily Blunt) comes of age and is courted by Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) the film blooms. Blunt is a strong actress and finds that delicate line between girlish infatuation and royal dignity that makes her a fine foil for those at court who would seek to control the 'child queen' - including her secretary Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). But as she matures into her role as queen her eye dwells on the dashing German Prince Albert, and a love affair that has lasted in the memories of everyone is matched by the concept of joining Royalty with concern for the care of her subjects - much due to the sensitivity of Albert. The film takes us to the birth of their first of nine children and then ends with some statements about the influence of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's effect on the various Royalties throughout Europe! It makes for an evening of beautiful costume drama and allows us to appreciate the growth of two young stars in Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. A solid if not transporting epic. <br /><br />Grady Harp | positive |
I guess by the time I saw this episode, I had seen enough Twilight Zones to have it figured out ahead of time. There is this odd assemblage of characters who find themselves at the bottom of a cylinder. They are fine until an overzealous soldier shows up in their midst. It is his prime directive to escape and so he garners the forces and puts them to work to reach the top of the cylinder. There is much discussion about purpose and reason and speculation on their pasts, but no one can remember anything. They represent different jobs: a piper, a ballerina, a clown, a man in a tattered hat. Why are they there? It leads to an adventure and is resolved at the end, but I guess I had a pretty good idea before it all happened. | positive |
One of the best comedy series to ever come out of Britain. Mark Gatiss,Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton are terrific actors and performers who seem at home with drama as they are with comedy. Ably supported by their writing partner Jeremy Dyson, they have peopled the series with the most memorable characters of recent years. Little Britain pales into insignificance as a poor imitation of their ideas. Consistently original and groundbreaking I am sure that as many people hate these series as love them but I am equally as sure that no one could have no opinion on LOG. I have yet to see the feature length movie but I have heard good things and bad things so I will reserve judgement.The original radio series from which LOG came was as innovative as the TV series became. I don't know whether the TV series made it to the US but I would be fascinated to see how American audiences found the weird Englishness of the humour | positive |
Everybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.<br /><br />I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero..."The Dragon" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner. | negative |
The last of the "Airport" sequels. This has Alain Delon and George Kennedy (who was in all the Airport movies) as pilots; David Warner (!!!) as the radio engineer; Susan Blakely as a newswoman targeted for death; Robert Wagner as a brilliant scientist (stop laughing!); Eddie Albert as a president of the airlines; Charo in a dreadful "comical" bit; John Davidson as a newsman (love how his hair stays in place even AFTER the plane turns upside down!); poor Martha Raye is humiliated; Cicely Tyson plays a mother who is flying a heart for her dying son (stop rolling your eyes!); Jimmie Walker as a clarinet player (what did I say about not laughing?); Mercedes McCambridge as a Russian gymnastics coach (OK you can laugh at that one); Bibi Andresson as a hooker and Sylvia Kristel and Sybil Danning as love interests.<br /><br />Just pathetic. Full of stupid plots and dialogue that will have you roaring--watch for Davidson getting "married" on the plane near the end! The Concorde is taking all these people to Russia. They're attacked with missiles, escape, land safely in France and TAKE OFF AGAIN the very next day!!!! Don't you think the flight would have been cancelled or something? Most of the acting is terrible--McCambridge is a sight to behold in a red fright wig and a horrible fake accent. The only good acting is from Kennedy and Delon (looking fantastic) who gives a very engaging performance. Still that's not enough to make you sit through this drivel. Too long and lousy special effects too. This was a mega-bomb and (thankfully) stopped Universal from doing anymore. | negative |
"Throw Momma From the Train" is a simple dark comedy with lots of laughs.<br /><br />Billy Crystal plays a frustrated writer on the verge of collapse; Danny DeVito plays a man in one of Crystal's writing classes. Crystal's ex-wife is a *hag* to put it nicely, and Crystal hates her. DeVito, sensing this, offers Crystal a deal one night: DeVito will kill Crystal's wife, if Crystal kills DeVito's nag of a mother. Crystal does, of course, refuse, but later, corruption deep in his heart makes him say yes. And so as things play out we see what happens when you try to throw someone's momma from a moving train.<br /><br />This story is an interesting character study; a story of evil, greed, revenge, ego, trust, doing what's right, but most of all corruption. We see Crystal's white-collar writer become ever-stressed with events colliding around him, and because of DeVito's constant nagging, he says "yes." But we know deep down in his subconscious he wanted to say "yes," and he's pleased that he said it to DeVito.<br /><br />This movie is a bit of a dark spoof on Hitchcock's immortal film "Strangers on a Train," and it plays an homage to the film early on, when there is a theater playing "Strangers on a Train." We see DeVito watching the movie, and a lightbulb in his head pops on. He gets an idea. Throw Momma from the train!<br /><br />Billy Crystal gives another convincing and strangely comical performance as a hassled writer on the verge of collapse. He has been so beaten down by everything around him that his inner-emotions come out and he agrees to throw DeVito's momma from the train. <br /><br />Danny DeVito directed this film excellently. He uses just the right touch of comic darkness to create a world of corruption and sickness. Everything is demented, but not to an extreme like in some other dark comedies. It has just the right touch of darkness that shone through in "The War of the Roses."<br /><br />Not only is "Throw Momma From the Train" a simple tale of corruption and morality, but is also an interesting character study. Definitely worth catching on TV.<br /><br />3.5/5 stars -<br /><br />John Ulmer | positive |
I was a huge fan of the original Robocop.<br /><br />But to say I was disappointed by this first sequel would be an understatement.<br /><br />The problems are many.<br /><br />Glossy though the film may look there are plenty of bloopers on screen for all to see, wires, cameramen etc, something I find wholly unacceptable from someone of Irvin Kreshner's pedigree.<br /><br />Robocop has become a robot. There is no spark of humanity to be found in the character here. A true disappointment when one considers that his "soul" had returned by the end of the first movie. Here his attitude shows no human side and makes him hard to sympathise with.<br /><br />Caine is a poor villain. OK I know Boddiker from the first film was better than the average, mainly thanks to Kurtwood Smith's performance, but the usually solid Tom Noonan creates a character who you couldn't care less about one way or the other.<br /><br />What's happened to the Old Man????. I appreciate that he didn't get to where he is by being "nice" but the change in his character here is nothing short of dumbfounding. In the first movie it's made clear he despises Dick Jone's tactics and attitude and yet here he's no better than Jones. It makes no sense.<br /><br />Doctor Faxx is a poor replacement for Bob Morton's charismatic, if unpleasant, OCP resident genius.<br /><br />The action sequences, save the sequence where Murphy is stuck to the side of Caine's truck, are harsh and nasty and repel rather than entertain.<br /><br />And finally. What is with the musical score?. Don't tell me Poledouris couldn't have done it simply because he was working on Total Recall at the time. A series (TV or Movie) soundtrack is part of its personality. Part of its character. When you remove that it harms the familiarity of the characters we're watching. So it's bad enough but shame on Leonard Rosenman. His score here is lurid, camp and downright cringe worthy.<br /><br />The story has its moments to be fair. There's a lot of originality in here. But it tries too many new things to take in with one film. Hob is a well realised villain and the only truly dis likable "villian" in the move, Thumbs up to Gabriel Damon there.<br /><br />The final showdown between Robocop and Robocop 2 is fun as well.<br /><br />But for the vast majority of its overlong running time this is a serious disappointment. | negative |
Even if you're not a big Ramones fan, Rock 'N' Roll High School is *still* the greatest rock 'n' roll movie ever made. Why? Because under all the campiness, it treats with respect the contempt and loathing teens often feel (and justifiably so) for the boring, stupid, fascist, establishment world of adults. That final scene is one of the most glorious and uplifting final scenes to a movie I have ever seen. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the..." Rock 'n' roll!<br /><br /> | positive |
Unremarkable and unmemorable remake of an old, celebrated English film. Although it may be overly maligned as a total disaster (which it is not), it never builds any tension and betrays its TV origins. Richard Burton sleepwalks through his role, and Sophia Loren's closed (in this movie) face doesn't display much passion, either. (**) | negative |
This is a skillfully crafted piece of cinema that deals with a teenage boys confused sexuality.The cut scenes within can be lengthy but the cinematography is beautiful.This film would not appeal to many people, especially those who are queasy about gay teenage relationships, but the more open minded can sympathize with the puzzled protagonist. | positive |
This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema. | 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.