review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Walter Matthau can always improve a mediocre film, and this movie proves it. He turns in a very realistic performance as a small-time horse trainer and single father, not sugar-coating either role.<br /><br />He can be, by turns, soft-hearted and doting, then iron-handed to his boys, and we can see the same dichotomy in his approach to horse training (we see that he doesn't want his young prospect racing horse overworked and hurt in small-time races, but he seems to be willing to risk the horse's life when he gets into the big time).<br /><br />This is just one of Matthau's wonderful performances, and one that I highly recommend. | positive |
When I saw this movie in the theater when it came out in 1995 via a free advanced screening, I was totally enchanted and would have gladly paid to see it. I was sorry when I talked to many people afterwards who had also seen it and who were totally disappointed with it and how it ended. I, on the other hand, felt completely the opposite. I was totally satisfied with the outcome and everything else. People I talked to said there was too much talking! Plus they were unhappy because they felt that the ending left you wondering about the fate of the two characters. I found these observations to be absurd and to also be painful evidence of how the majority of the American movie-going public seems to have a tendency to want easy-to-follow stories in films with not too much complex and intelligent dialogue lest they get confused. They also like to be spoon-fed tidy endings--happy OR sad. This disgusts me. Nobody wants to be challenged anymore??? And as for the ending (and I don't want to be a spoiler), I am totally content because I know in my heart that these two characters WILL see each other again. It's all about your own personal faith in romance and destiny. It's a very personal film that doesn't speak to all people. But it certainly spoke to me. Give it a chance! Be patient with it! Richard Linklater has crafted a very lovely film with a beautiful story set against the beautiful background of the city of Vienna. Watching it makes you feel as if you yourself are strolling through the city streets along with the characters. As if you yourself were tripping through Europe on a Eurail pass. It's very intimate. Plus, Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy do an exquisite job of bringing the complex script to life. They must have improvised during some parts and it works well. They have a great chemistry in their roles. Their awkwardness as strangers getting to know each other in the beginning is very believable and you can truly feel the romance and bonding develop between them as the movie progresses. I get the feeling that this was a very personal work for Mr. Linklater and I deeply respect him for getting this film made. It definitely touched me and I hope it touches others just as much. Bravo for romance!!! | positive |
I enjoy movies like this for their spirit, no pun intended. Its a decent, clean movie about a baseball team that's falling behind, and a young fan wishes for them to win, since his deadbeat dad said that was the only way he'd come back for him. <br /><br />The spirit shines through in two ways: A funny cast with Danny Glover and a young Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and the heavenly herald Al, taking the dynamic form of Christopher Lloyd. Its an energetic movie. It gets you smiling, and really involves you in the sport. <br /><br />Therein lies my gripe. the one thing that kinda bugs me is these sports movies that kind of turn you into an unexpecting fan for the team. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I just find it odd that I should come away from the movie thinking the Angels are a strong, cool team, when really my base loyalty, such as it is, lies with the Toronto Blue Jays. It's interesting, really. If it's just a movie about an underdog kids team, then its okay. | positive |
One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and "Gymkata" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously. | negative |
This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was "I put a spell on you" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.<br /><br />I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words "want to shoot?" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an "advertisement" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.<br /><br />The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the "other" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.<br /><br />Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one "section" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.<br /><br />I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.<br /><br />This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a "good vs bad" cliché scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as "Paradise Now" and "Wedding in the Galilee." | negative |
If you like to get a couple of fleeting glimpses of cleavage on some attractive women, there may be a second or two of enjoyment from this film. If you enjoy seeing poorly conceived and executed "action" scenes, there are plenty. If you are both blind and deaf, I still advise you to not have this film on in your presence. It is surely the worst or very close to the worst film I have ever seen. And it does appear that there was some money spent on it. Talk about throwing money away! As an editor, I would hope that the "editor(s?)" of this "movie" never again be allowed to edit a film, book, or even a post-it note. As a writer, I would hope that the author(s?) never again be allowed near even a broken crayon. You would think that I am not recommending that you view this movie. NOT so. Tape it (so you may stop your pain when you need to) and educate yourself as to how bad a movie can be. | negative |
jeez, this was immensely boring. the leading man (Christian Schoyen) has got to be the worst actor i have ever seen. and another thing, if the character in the movie moved to America when he was ten or something and had been living here for over 20 years, he would speak a lot better English than what he pulls of here. or to say it in my own Language "Skikkelig gebrokkent". But it is cool to see Norwegian dudes in a movie made in Hollywood. it was just a damn shame they were talentless hacks. The storyline itself is below mediocre. I have a suspicion that Christian Schoyen did this movie just to live the dream, as he clearly does in the film by humping one beautiful babe after another. | negative |
I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.<br /><br />The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.<br /><br />The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.<br /><br />Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes. | negative |
Naturally, along with everyone else, I was primed to expect a lot of Hollywood fantasy revisionism in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON over the legend of Custer. Just having someone like Errol Flynn play Custer is enough of a clue that the legend has precedence over the truth in this production. And for the most part my expectations were fulfilled (in an admittedly rousing and entertaining way).<br /><br />Yet even in this obviously biased (and much criticized) retelling of the Custer story, I was struck by some of the points made in this movie that, sometimes subtly but nevertheless solidly, seemed to counter the typical clichés of manifest destiny and unvarnished heroism usually found in Westerns of the early 20th century.<br /><br />For instance, even while this film attempted to whitewash it's hero, certain scenes still suggested the more flawed and foolish character of the real-life Custer: <br /><br />1) His initial entrance at the West Point front gate, in which his arrogance and pompousness is a clear aspect of his character.<br /><br />2) His miserable record at West Point, which seems to be attributed as much to Custer's cluelessness about the demands of military service as any other factor; there are moments in the way Flynn plays Custer at West Point where he seems downright stupid.<br /><br />3) Custer's promotion to General is not only presented as a ridiculous mistake, but it plays out as slapstick comedy. I half-expected to see the Marx Brothers or Abbott and Costello wander into the scene.<br /><br />4) Custer's stand against Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg is not whitewashed as brilliant military tactical leadership, but is presented as reckless and wildly lucky.<br /><br />5) Custer's drinking problem is certainly not ignored.<br /><br />And although the music and some of the ways the Indians were shown in this film were certainly reinforcements of the racist stereotype of the ignorant savage, it still came as a surprise to me that the movie actually went into some detail as to why the Indians were justified in attacking the whites who were moving into their land, and fairly explicitly laid the blame for the battles in the Black Hills squarely at the foot of the white man. In fact, no one can argue that the clear villain of the piece is not Anthony Quinn as Sitting Bull, but Arthur Kennedy & Co. as the white devils making the false claim of gold in the Black Hills. Sure, that part of the story is true, but I didn't expect to see it portrayed quite so unequivically in a movie like this.<br /><br />And one other thing: usually in these films it is the Indians who are portrayed en masse as drunken animals seemingly incapable of the basic common sense to avoid getting falling down drunk any time they get near alcohol. In this movie, it is actually the troops of the 7th Cavalry, and not the Indians, who in at least two scenes are portrayed this way.<br /><br />All in all, this movie slips in some surprising moments in the midst of the Hollywood bunk. | positive |
A group of evil businessmen need to knock down a building to build a huge complex, but they can't remove the tenants. The tenants and businessmen with their hired thugs clash until the film ends with one of the funniest fights ever! The guy with the ginger hair who goes 'eeeeehhhh' every time he throws a punch and the other guy who poses with a knife in his mouth instead of fighting, only to be beaten off camera, make this essential viewing if you like to laugh at films rather than with them. | positive |
In April of 1965, CBS broadcast the first of Barbra Streisand's monumental television specials. The show was not only a runaway ratings success, but garnered 5 Emmy awards as well. This is one of the most memorable moments of 1960's television and (unfortunately) the kind of television special they don't produce anymore. Filled with wonderful songs and a spectacular performance by Barbra, this special is a must view for any Streisand fan and anyone interested in early television. | positive |
I really enjoyed this both times I watched it. And both times, I walked away thinking about it, and the "morals of the story" a great deal. I agree with another reviewer in that the movie is not centred around the sci-fi aspects you might expect from an alien-on-Earth movie, but rather is about the human condition. The characters in the psych hospital provide a great insight in to that, and how they go from hopelessness to hope. This movie has touches of sadness to humour to sympathy to the final "is he or isn't he". That final question was well handled and even though some might argue you don't know what happens in the end and the question goes unanswered, I feel it is done in far more detail than something wishywashy like say, the movie Ronin (with Robert De Niro) where you never find out what's in the box and feel very frustrated because of it. I highly recommend K-PAX. 8/10 | positive |
This isn't one of those reviews about poor special effects or technology, or being dated, issues that only the dorkiest people could relate with, but rather a review on the story telling, which most of us are truly interested in.<br /><br />The plot is about a combination of WWII Allied and German Navy members, and two civilians (the hero and heroine), who are thrust together on a German U boat and wind up in a savage land of dinosaurs.<br /><br />The manipulations aren't so bad by film standards, and we know from the plot that realism isn't going to be high. What films like this need are credible and likable characters, along with some semblance of reason in the actions.<br /><br />This film lacks both. For a full length film, only 6 characters are given any time, and 3 of them are barely looked into. McClure's hero is beyond "routine", and doesn't make much sense in any era.<br /><br />The female seems to be looking for an answer to a riddle about the land of dinosaurs they entered, but the riddle is not much of a riddle, and we could care less.<br /><br />A lot of failure in a film that should have been better, even for its time. | negative |
"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".<br /><br />Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.<br /><br />In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10 | positive |
Rules of Engagement is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. It is well constructed, superbly pieced together, and provides excellent footage to back up the assertions that it takes on. The movie's best quality is that it is not based on being sympathetic to the Dividians as much as it enlightens the audience to the blatant governmental mistakes and lies that surrounded the entire situation. I'm left with feelings of disturbing anxiety and extreme anger over the way that the government handled and then covered up a tragedy of this magnitude. The cover up is what left me really fuming. It is one thing to make a mistake in an operation and admit guilt, but another to look the American people squarely in the eye and lie to them. I guess it shouldn't surprise me with the history of our beloved country that has seen the JFK assassination, the Vietnam War, and other significant events that smell so bad of a cover up that you have to hold your nose every time you drive through Washington D.C. The footage from an airplane with special heat sensing technology and the autopsies on some of the bodies clearly show that the FBI is lying to the public. One of the things that I try to stay aware of when watching a documentary such as this is that I am usually only receiving testimony from one point of view. But again, that is without a doubt one of the brilliant successes of Rules of Engagement. It presents its evidence in such a concluding fashion that even if you were presented with statements from the FBI how could you really believe them. I remember clearly when the standoff was taking place the way the media presented the Dividians as this crazed group of cult rebels with David Koresh, the self professed reborn Jesus Christ, as their leader. None of this was truly factual but rather story spun from bits and pieces of facts. They were simply standing up for there rights to bear arms and practice their religion as American Citizens. If you were the ATF and you wanted to search the compound is attacking the building with a unit of men who are armed with rifles and bullet proof suits the way to go about doing it? If you are the FBI why engage in psychological warfare and offer little in actual negotiation to help solve the situation? Why pour gallons of harmful gas if you want to save children? Why open large holes within the compound structure when you know the possibility of starting a fire? Why lie about not firing weapons when it can be clearly shown on video? Unless. Unless you wanted to see the situation end up the way it did. The scene at the end when the Dividians Star of David flag blew off the flagpole into the fire and the ATF's was shortly thereafter raised up was an emotional climatic scene that made my head shake in disgust and my stomach turn uncontrollably. The filmmaker William Gazecki deserves one my highest congratulations. It takes a lot of guts to make a movie like this and I am sure there have been many repercussions from the government for it as well. Because of people like him the public can be shown real truth rather than crap that gets filtered through a media that presents information that can hardly be considered genuine. When I think back to how I felt at the time toward the Dividians because of the media's representation of David Koresh and how I felt after seeing this movie it is truly amazing. It reminds me of the line from the bible of a man who was healed by Jesus and asked by the elders how it happened "before I was blind but now I can see" he kept telling them. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. You may have to look for it but it is truly something special. | positive |
The goal of any James Bond game is to make the player feel like he is fulfilling an ultimate fantasy: step into the shoes of Agent 007. "FRWL" comes closer to this goal than any other game, because this time you control the real James Bond. No offense to Pierce Brosnan, who made a fantastic Bond and loaned his voice and likeness to "EON", but Sean Connery was the original James Bond, and there will never be anyone who comes close to his level of cool.<br /><br />I must say at this point, like many others who have reviewed this game, that Sean 70 year old voice doesn't fit his 30 year old image on screen, and this takes some getting used to, but it's certainly worth it. He makes lines like "Bond
James Bond" and "Shaken, not stirred" into a big deal again. But controlling Sir Sean as he takes on the evil organization known as OCTOPUS is, as Bond said in "Octopussy", "only the tip of the tentacle." The awesomeness of the game begins with the opening gun barrel. It's the original gun barrel from the movies. Then you take on first mission, rescuing the Prime Minister's hottie blonde daughter from terrorists at Parliament, and everything from the cars to the clothes is perfectly retro. The world of the game is truly the world of the original James Bond, right down to the classic rock-n-roll rendition of the James Bond theme that finally plays during a key moment late in the game, as Bond infiltrates a secret factory.<br /><br />After the game's opening, the plot faithfully follows the plot of the movie "FRWL." James Bond is sent to Turkey to retrieve a Lektor device from a Russian cipher clerk who claims she has a crush on him. In Turkey, Bond teams up with lovable sidekick Kerim Bey. Bond must retrieve the device, protect the damsel in distress, and get both safely back to London. Bond screenwriter Bruce Feirstein worked on the script, and he's done a good job of making the game the same but different to the movie. The characters from the movie are all recreated well, but some are better than others. The impersonators voicing villains Rosa Klebb and Red Grant are uncanny. And there's a moment early on in the game where you interact with a Miss Moneypenny, M, and Q who all look and behave as they did in the original Sean Connery 007 movies.<br /><br />What puts this game miles ahead of the other Bond games, besides Sir Sean's voice and likeness, is two notable features in the game play. One is Bond focus. While you can dispatch villains simply by locking onto them with one button and killing them with the other, an additional button push will allow you to zoom in closer on a target and choose between spots Bond would shoot at, such as a grenade attached to a belt that will dispatch an enemy and a few of his friend or a rappel cord that will cause a suspended enemy to plunge to his death. The other notable feature is the stealth and mêlée kills. When you're in close enough range, just hit a button to beat down an enemy with the raw brutality that only Sean Connery's James Bond displayed.<br /><br />Sean Connery's Bond relied mostly on his raw wit and talent, so you only have a few gadgets, but they're good ones. The Q-copter is a remote control helicopter that can self-destruct and explore areas Bond can't reach, like the Q-spider in "EON", only better. The classic laser watch is useful, not just for getting into sealed rooms, but dispatching enemies when you have no other weapon available. Sonic cuff links and a serum gun are the most fun to play around with, but you must experience them for yourself. Besides the gadgets, you can go dress Bond up in a number of retro costumes found during the game, including the gray suit from the movie, the standard black tuxedo, a retro stealth suit, and that classic white tuxedo, all which look exactly like they did when Sir Sean wore them in the movies. When you drive in the game, you drive the Aston Martin DB5 straight out of "Goldfinger." It can't turn invisible, but it has a gadget for popping tires like in the movie. And when you're not flying down the streets of Istanbul in the "Goldinger" car, you can fly through the air in the "Thunderball" jet pack.<br /><br />Then there's the multi-player. Of course, it has to be compared to the standard of the "GoldenEye" game, and it fails. Also, you can only play Bond villains rather than Bond himself or the other heroes of the game. But the multi-player is amusing, and a decent bonus since the awesomeness of the single player campaign alone makes the game worth playing. The basic game does have other flaws. Some of the movie's most exciting moments, particularly the gypsy camp shootout, Bond's brawl with Red Grant on the Orient Express, and a confrontation between Bond and Rosa Klebb's bladed shoe, aren't done justice in game form. And the game is a fast play, even on the hardest difficulty. But overall, this game is the best James Bond experience so far. | positive |
This movie had it all,action,comedy,heroics,and best of all some of the finest actors.Gunga Din will remain a classic to be enjoyed by all who like good movies.Excellent picture,i have it in my collection. | positive |
Perhaps I'm one of the only avid horror fans who thinks that the recent overload of Asian shockers is so over-hyped! Films like "Ringu" or the "The Eye" which are praised all over the world simply didn't convince me and they looked more boring than frightening. Well, this blunt opinion doesn't go for the South Korean gem "A Tale of Two Sisters". This is a stylish and utterly complex psychological terror-tale that REALLY gets under your skin! The plot, based on a local folklore tale, might be a little too confusing to get this film listed among the all-time greatest genre achievements, but the atmosphere and tension-building surely provokes feelings of great respect. This is one of those few films that are impossible to label: the events in "Two Sisters" qualify as mind-bending horror as well as intense family drama and a deeply psychological portrait. Besides a mesmerizing story, "A tale of Two Sisters" also has all the great elements that I feel are usually missing in Asian horror films like compelling music, good acting and innovative camera-work. The mansion were the family events take place is brilliantly illustrated like a truly creepy place where secrets and danger lurk behind every door. Several sequences (like the dinner with relatives or the nightly appearance in the girls' room) are pretty much the ultimate in eeriness. They really made me feel uncomfortable and I do like to believe that I've seen my share of spooky horror. "A Tale of Two Sisters" is a terrific movie-adventure and a definite must see for Asian film fanatics. A little warning for people with a short attention-span, though: this movie forces you to have your eyes and ears focused at at all time. It's also a film that requires repeated viewing, even though no one will never really "get it" for a full 100%. | positive |
The Mummy's Curse is the last in the series of the Kharis mummy films, and it seems that creativity had run somewhat dry by the time they made this one. Kharis and his mate Ananka both end up in the bayous of Louisiana, and on his resurrection, he searches out his beloved princess. How they end up in Louisiana isn't made entirely clear, but with various people trying to find them, the viewer can be assured of some mummy murders.<br /><br />The Mummy's Curse was watchable, but it really wasn't anything special. I had the feeling throughout the movie that I'd seen this before. Quite frankly, apart from the original The Mummy with Boris Karloff, the Mummy movies are not my favorites among the old Universal horrors. They're not bad, but they do get a bit repetitive.<br /><br />There are some great scenes in the movie (the scene with Ananka coming to life in the swamp for instance) but overall this didn't do much for me.<br /><br />It's worth seeing if you want to be completest and see all of the mummy movies, but otherwise you might want to pass on this one. | negative |
I saw the movie in 1972, and like other people who have commented on it here ... I went back many more times to see it over and over ... I think 9 times in all. Just great is how I would describe it ... I was taken by the sound track, the beautiful panoramas of the south of France, the life style the kids began on their own. An ideal way to live is what they had set up ... of course the powers that be have to intercede, but when I forget that part I find myself wanting to be in the movie and live like that! So good that it is available on DVD now ... it was not around for years! <br /><br />TLW | positive |
I bought Dark Angel seasons 1 & 2 two weeks ago, after catching a couple of season 1 episodes on Channel 5. Nothing prepared me for how brilliant the show is. I haven't enjoyed anything as much since Firefly (also and amazing show). I'll admit Season 2 wqasn't quite as good, but there are still some amazing episodes (see Designate this, Bag 'Em, the Berrisford Agenda, Harbor Lights, Freak Nation etc.) and Alec is great. I've heard some of the plans for the would-be season 3, and I have to say, I can't believe it was cancelled - I won't spoil it for you - but it would have rocked! I also think it has a lot of potential as a movie (although at the moment it seems highly unlikely). As proof of my obsessiveness, Max's barcode number is 332960073452, and in the two weeks I've had it, I am 3 episodes away from having watched both seasons twice. It's just too good. | positive |
Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for "King Kong versus Godzilla". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.<br /><br />The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of "Chushingura" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a "nation which shall not be named" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.<br /><br />Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.<br /><br />By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted "Kong" or "King Kong" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy. | negative |
I originally watched 8 simple rules on the Disney channel UK for the first series and got completely hooked. When they didn't show it any more \ was annoyed, but then abc 1 satred showing the 2nd series. i didn't think another series would start after I read John ritter had died, however the 2nd series wasn't amazing the latest series is back to it's old excellent standard. i hope they go on to produce more shows soon even though i could watch each show a thousand times. Kaley couco is my favourite character as airhead Bridget and also performs amazing in Charmed. Rory is also good, he shares my name and Grampa as well.I'll keep on watching it until it ends until then I hope it carries on as funny as ever | positive |
This is a forgotten classic of a film, and Harmony Karin borrowed a ton from it for "Gummo". Gummo is good, River's Edge is way, way better. Its no secret that Keanu Reeves isn't the best actor whoever walked the earth. No, in fact, he's a horrendous actor. But, he was born for some roles: Ted Preston, Esquire from Bill and Ted, and his role in this film. He is perfect as a sort of good natured but very apathetic and confused teenager. Then there's Crispin Glover. I think his performance in this film is the best of his career. He is phenomenal as the drugged out wackjob character. Then there's Dennis Hopper, who is perfect as well. This movie is simply amazing, and if you haven't seen it, run out and watch it today. Its brilliant. One of the best portrayals of modern America I've seen. | positive |
So we saw this on DVD at our apartment here in Paris. We're all here on an exchange program. We all laughed so hard cuz so much of what was going on in the movie happened to us! I mean yeah sure some of it was pretty clichéd but still true, know what I'm saying.<br /><br />I think I related more to the quiet guy (the Italian) than Xavier because I'm more of the observer in our group. Anyway, I wish I had a hot roommate like Cecile de France. She seems like a cool chick in the movie and for real, after I saw her hosting the Cannes Festival last month.<br /><br />Now I'm thinking I wanna go to Barcelona next summer after seeing this movie. I gotta check out the sequel too which just came out here in France. | positive |
This is the forty minute film that introduces us to the character of the Butcher, who will later be examined more thoroughly in the feature Seul Contre Tous. In this film, it follows the early period of his life from 1965-1979, but focusing on the late seventies. The first images are of a slaughter of a horse, then the birth of a baby, the Butcher's daughter, who we quickly see growing up each year. The Butcher (played by Philippe Nahon in both films) is a man bitter with the world. He hates many things. His anger comes to a head when a man assaults his autistic daughter. The Butcher then maims the wrong man, and finds himself in prison.<br /><br />This film follows the butcher's life to just after his release from prison, then Seul Contre Tous takes over from there. I watched the films the wrong way about, Seul Contre Tous first. Try and watch this little film first if you can. | positive |
I have mixed emotions about this film, especially as it compares to its forerunner,<br /><br />"An American Werewolf In London." That film had it's funny moments, it was still more of horror tale than anything else. This updated version, now set in Paris, does not have that "edge" at all and simply isn't in the same class....but it does have some good things going for it that the first film did not have and overall it's still fun to watch. <br /><br />So, "werewolf purists" aside, most of whom think this film is pure garbage compared to the London version, I'll still give it decent marks since I don't care what others think. I liked it even though I agree "London" is better and I prefer that version, too. <br /><br />The first 30-40 minutes of this movie is strictly played for laughs including a hysterical scene with a "balloon" in a restaurant. It also introduces the lead female character, played by Julie Delpy. I don't see enough of this actress. She doesn't seem to make that many films, or least ones I hear about over here in America. This French actress has a face that is classic beauty, so the film got points for having her in it, and she looks great.<br /><br />When the horror starts, it can get scary and the special effects are good. I also liked the lack of profanity in this film, unlike the first one: no f-words and no Lord's name in vain - amazing!<br /><br />However, there are plenty of sexual remarks and there is one scene with a guy running out of bar tied to a cross which was blasphemous to me. The soundtrack is heavy metal which isn't appealing to a middle-aged guy like me, either. This film is geared a lot more toward 20-somethings, if that helps anyone.<br /><br />It's entertaining.....just don't expect it to live up to the first film. | positive |
Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.<br /><br />First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?<br /><br />Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.<br /><br />Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high. | negative |
This is one of my personal favorites, a rare little gem that seems to be undiscovered by the general population. Chris Cooper and Patricia Clarkson form the heart of the piece in what is a well-chosen cast. Few movies have ever captured the true hostilities that undergirded the Civil War, but this one seems to capture all the right tones and moods. If you're a fan of the book, Cold Mountain, try this movie out and see if you don't think it makes a good companion piece. | positive |
Othello is set to burn the eyes of the viewers of this film. The bad depiction of Shakespeare's characters, and the terrible rendition of the love that Desi & John had, made this movie the horrendous filth that it is. By far, Othello, directed by Jeffery Saks, is beyond mediocre and atrocious. <br /><br />The movie Othello is a pitiful drama about the love between John and Desi. Their faithfulness to one another will be tested by the man's friend. In the opening scene of the film, it is clearly shown that the love between John and Desdemona is inseparable beyond belief. Moments later, Ben Jago, John's friend pops out into the screen scaring the viewers and showing them right away how much of a liar and power hungry person he is. <br /><br />By far, this movie was much more horrid than the Shakespeare novel itself. With that being said, it does have a miniscule amount of good parts. For example, the love that was shown between John and Desi, was depicted very well and it looked that the couple was so inseparable; just as it was explained in the book. Although the love between them was shown exceptionally well, it still did not show the jealously that Othello had between Cass and Desi as well as it should. <br /><br />Love, jealously, deceitfulness, this movie is based on all three of the main topics that were in the Shakespeare novel. The novel however, really explains how all of this came together much better than the movie could. For example, the conclusion of this story ends much more differently in the book than in the film. Much more detail is also put into the novel. This is why this film is such a disappointment, trust me, those who have read it will find it disappointing as well. <br /><br />In conclusion, this film was by far, the most horrendous depiction of a novel that has ever been put out by mankind. By avoiding to see this film, not only will viewers save themselves an hour two of their lives, but also save themselves an eye or two from the distasteful face of Ben Jago popping out at them. | negative |
Chayanne is beautiful enough, Vanessa is beautiful enough, I liked the storyline. But I went in with the expectation to see lots of energetic hot salsa dancing, I was disappointed. There needed to be more dancing, especially salsa. | negative |
I first saw this movie with my fiancée many years after it came out. I thought I would hate it, but to my surprise it is so cheesy that it's great. We've spent many hours reenacting parts of the movie ("Sylvia?!Yes Mickey?" or "I'm sorry you had to see that Baby. Sometimes in this world we see things that we don't want to."). My financee cracks up every time I imitate Neil. Also the music is classic and fun to sing along with, especially on road trips. Of course I don't admit any of this to my male friends. It's like a guilty pleasure. I seriously watch Dirty Dancing once a month or more and it is just as good every time. Jennifer Grey is also so cute in this movie. Its too bad her career never really took off. | positive |
This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece? | negative |
Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is. | negative |
When a film is independent and not rated, such as the Hamiltons, I was expecting out of the norm, cut out your heart violence. I know that good movies don't always contain blood and violence, but I read reviews, I visited the website, and I even convinced a few of my friends to pay $9.50 to see this god awful movie with me. When there is a festival called Horrorfest, I am expecting horror, not Dawsons Creek with incestuous undertones. My expectations were extremely low for this film, yet the little expectations there was for the film were shot to hell once I saw that an hour had passed before we saw the first drop of blood come out of someones finger. There were too many plot holes and left too much to the imagination. I regret not seeing Happy Feet. I think there might have been more violence and gore in that movie than in the Hamiltons! | negative |
THE. WORST. FILM. EVER. MADE.<br /><br />After watching this supposedly gay made film, I suspect someone rounded up a brain damaged half blind neo-nazi and had him make the worst gay film ever, all in some deluded attempt to attack gay culture. I had to stop the movie and call a friend to come over just so I had someone to scoff at when I paused the movie out of shock, disbelief and outrage at such sheer stupidity.<br /><br />On top of all the horrible writing and acting and illogical and stupid plot, its just a poorly made film. A dog with a handycam tied to its tail could have churned out better.<br /><br />Seriously, after reading the few positive reviews this movie has here, I suspect the writer must have a half a dozen IMDb accounts. Anyone who says this film is even watchable as anything other than a joke, is a liar or being paid heavily to say so. | negative |
I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema. | negative |
This is such a great movie to watch with young children. I'm always looking for an excuse to watch it over & over. Gena was good, Cheech was fun,the Russian was good, Maria was adorable & of course Paulie was the best! | positive |
This movie was horrendous... It had absolutely nothing to do with Dark Harvest. And the DVD was very misleading because it showed a scarecrow and a scythe, neither of which appeared in this movie.<br /><br />The beginning was a jumble of random scenes that, most of which, had nothing to do with the movie, except that they sort of show that the man is psychic... but not too well...<br /><br />After the first 10 minutes of the movie there is an hour of just the man character looking for his daughters. It gets vaguely interesting when the daughters meet two girls who died the year before. But that's the extent of it.<br /><br />And why, might i ask, was this movie rated R? There were two drops of blood and 4 curse words. And how on earth did it get into a video store?? This movie was poorly acted, poorly filmed, poorly written, and overall horribly executed. | negative |
I had the pleasure of attending a screening of The Pacific and Eddy last weekend at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. This film had caught my attention a little while back when I stumbled across an article about it in Jalouse magazine. Seemed interesting at the time, but nothing too exciting. Anyhow, I saw it on the festival program and decided to check it out. All I can say is that I was speechless when the ending credits began to roll. This is one of the most beautiful and refreshing films that I have seen in some time. The photography, art direction, acting, and especially directing, were seamless and impeccable. Nothing is 'spelled out' for you in this film and actually makes you think. Something that a vast majority of films today do the exact opposite. The dialogue is carefully crafted and, although this script is not wall to wall chatter, the characters words are very deliberate and meaningful.<br /><br />It's definitely one of those films that deserves a second viewing and the more you see it, the more things you notice. It's a very layered and intelligent film. Not sure when or where it's playing again, but a definite must see for film enthusiasts. | positive |
Watching some of the sequences (err, the entire 1/3 of the film devoted to the battle on the ice) in Alexander Nevsy, a film directed by the Russian legend Sergei M. Eisenstein (co-directed by Dmitri Vasilyev in his only significant credit), made me realize how much must really go into directing, at least on a scale such as this. If I were a member of an awards group at the time of this film's release I probably would award Eisenstein with the director's award of the year, posthumously. It is such a mad stroke of cinematic genius to pull off some of things that are pulled off in the film, though for someone like this director after coming off of his best work- Battleship Potemkin and October- it could have been something he scoffed at at first. But amid a film that is sometimes a little frustrating with how little grays come in to the black and white subject matter, it's still a marvel of celluloid almost 70 years later. Lord of the Rings fans, meet the films' grandfather, so to speak.<br /><br />To say that something is a propaganda piece already puts a connotation to it, and often a bad one. It is something that has a full-blown message to it, and a point of view. It's still a matter of hot debate (see the swarms of argument over Moore's films for proof), about whether great art can come out of something that is point-blank meant to rouse the audience in a specific manner. In this particular case, the Russians against the Germans. At the time it was nearing WW2 and Russia once again faced the 'German invaders', and it's interesting to note that Eisenstein was actually commissioned to make this film, as a rallying call for the Russians to never forget a crucial piece of their history. The end result comes out as being something that is actually slightly common from seeing Battleship and October, however; if nothing else comes through those films it's that Eisenstein is most concerned about how the image and the content can come together finitely for the viewer, that style can completely envelop the viewer without fail. On those terms Alexander Nevsky is fearless. <br /><br />But even with the whole idea of 'Russia great, Germans bad', there are some small moments where things are made a little less stringent, a little less strict to these ideals. For example, when we first see the Germans in Privka, they're not some faceless blob who are totally barbaric and have a blind conquering intent (not that they aren't out to take whatever they can). They have their own national pride going too, that it would be nothing less for them to go forward with whatever their Christian-led masters tell them to. At the least, the evil of the picture has a face, however kept at a low minimum for the more prevalent side to kick in. There's also a brief scene, before the ice-scape battle, where the Russian troupe has a joke that's being told and laughed about, and it adds a little extra depth where else there might be precious little. Because more often than not in Alexander Nevsky, with its battle songs loaded with a pride in warfare, there aren't any complexities to characters, most notably Nevsky himself (played in ultra-heroic fashion, only questioning near the start, by Nikolai Cherkasov) who perhaps has to be this way in Eistenstein's intention of having him as the one infallible force to be reckoned with in the tale. After all, to be looking for naturalism in an Eisenstein film is like trying to find non-Kosher pig's feet at a deli.<br /><br />But the real reason to see the picture isn't the acting, anyhow, but for the look of the film, how it moves and takes in such an expansive environment that Eisenstein lays out. On the epic scale it's just as ambitious as his 20's films, with a number of extras not just in the main battle scenes but also in the scenes in the cities, of the hundreds of people rolling on through. In fact, I'd say that any director working in Hollywood or elsewhere thinking of doing some kind of huge epic, particularly war, would do very well to take a look at this film, even with just the sound off. It's even better if thought of as a silent film, with the visual strokes accentuated fantastically at times. One could spend a whole month analyzing the battle on the ice, how it starts with the German soldiers far away and then coming forward like bugs, and then how Eisenstein inter-cuts between close-ups of the actors fighting and then to wide-shots and with sped-up editing. And, of course, one can't discount the power of the music as well, Sergei Prokofiev delivering one of the great rousing scores of any epic work. All the while the director's editing keeps our eyes moving along with this frantic action at breakneck speed. If this was just a short film, it would surely rank with the greats, much like the Odessa Stairs sequence.<br /><br />If I did find it a little less than totally magnificent, it would be because of the faults that do come in from a director who is much more suited to the silent medium than for sound. While I have yet to see Ivan the Terrible, my one negative criticism would be of his direction of actors, which is really as broad as can be, with the melodrama at such a high-pitch its staggering (the sub-plot of the two soldiers vying for the Olga is the best example I can think of). But even this considered, Alexander Nevsky overall is too extraordinary to ignore, and ratchets up an engagement in the action and the film-making to a level that puts a benchmark for films even today to try and live up to. Grade: A | positive |
One IMDb reviewer calls Eaten Alive a passable film for the "cannibal connoisseur." Are there such people? I didn't know. But if you are one of them, hey, have a ball. The rest of you might find this tripe a bit hard to swallow (pun intended), even if, like me, you consider yourself a horror film connoisseur. I have been an avid horror fan for about 15 years now, although I never got around to the cannibal subgenre until a few weeks ago, and I guess I owe my short-lived interest in these groan-inducing movies, strangely enough, to China's total disregard for copyright laws. You see, I bought a two-disc DVD collection of all of Wesley Snipes' films for 20 yuan (about $2.75), which turned out to include Last Cannibal World, Mountain of the Cannibal God, Eaten Alive, Cannibal Holocaust, Next, with Nicholas Cage, and something called Voodoo Lagoon, along with Blade 1-3, in Chinese. Nice.<br /><br />Being a second sequel, I immediately got a sinking feeling when the movie opened with a cannibal in street clothes wandering around major American cities, shooting unsuspecting Americans with poison darts and then scrambling away at full speed. Having run out of ways to keep movie cannibals scary, it seems that now they have made their way to the mainland. Later, you may be shocked to learn that this guy is on a "training exercise." Lock up your daughters! <br /><br />Before long the movie settles into the old missing sister routine, as a young blonde woman named Sheila begins her own investigation of the disappearance of her sister, who looks nothing like her in any way, but she's willing to spend most of the movie naked so I guess that doesn't matter. It seems that, after shooting one of his victims, the hapless cannibal we met early in the movie, not used to big city life, ran into the road and was struck dead by a moving van. <br /><br />The brilliant police force find a mysterious bit of film on him showing Sheila's sister involved in some bizarre ritual behavior, but other than the film, the guy is a complete mystery. As the piteous police chief laments, "we know nothing about him except that he's dead!" Poor guy, he must be getting a headache from all this. I recommend a nap. Luckily, Sheila is the kind of girl who can throw around tens of thousands of dollars like it's nothing in the search for her sister. Perfect for hiring a plucky backwoods guide caricature, since the police are clearly going to be no help.<br /><br />Obviously, nothing new is added to this miniscule sub-genre. Quite the contrary, cannibalism almost seems like a background to a completely different kind of bad movie, about the rescue of a missing person from the dangerous elements. Thickening the plot of that clothesline is not difficult, all you have to do is add in a cartoonish jungle cult of people who follow some guy who calls himself Jonas, who believes in using pain as a way to reunite man with nature, a process they call "purification." Personally, I prefer just peeing outside occasionally.<br /><br />One of my favorite parts of the movie is when Sheila is caught by one of the cult members - an overweight guy who looks like he took a three-day weekend from the office to appear in this movie. As he pulls out his trusty medical kit to give her an injection, he warns her, "If you don't believe in Jonas and purification (through pain), God help you." He then gives her a shot and, when she winces from the tiny pinch, he politely apologizes to her. I sense a true believer in this guy!<br /><br />As far as the gore, there are plenty of nasty sound effects over random shots of animals getting slaughtered and more than enough disgusting footage of women being cut up and eaten alive, so I guess right there the movie lives up to its name. The acting is astonishingly bad, as can be expected, and interestingly enough, the editing is also spectacularly botched but still strangely effective. <br /><br />Unfortunately, I think you have to be able to relate to people who believe in utterly insane cults in order to relate to anyone in the movie. There are plenty of outlandish religious ceremonies that take place, which make it more and more difficult to understand why Sheila's sister decided to turn her back on normal society. I'm all for individualism and doing your own thing, but come ON. <br /><br />After a while the movie descends even further into your basic, run of the mill escape movie, just before we witness the most wildly inappropriate rendition of Glory, Glory Hallelujah in film history. WOW. <br /><br />Note: in this movie, a woman is raped with a severed snake. If you need any more reason never to watch it, seek professional help. Avoid this mess at all costs. | negative |
Where was his critique of democratic administrations as well as republican ones? After all he did serve for 17+ years in a body of government where his influence was unwaivering. Oh I forgot about the 8 years he was the 2nd in command of the most Powerful nation on Earth. The film is happy to show shots of a young Senator Gore asking why a NASA scientist was forced to change a conclusion in his scientific paper, but fails to ask about the complicity of Clinton/Gore in global warming. Probably too close to an election year, or maybe it would hurt the chances for Hillary in '08. Either way he's a political coward and party man to the bitter end. He offers no criticism of consumerism, no criticism of capitalism, no way to is the history of the industrial development which has led us to this point in time <br /><br />In the end this film was much more about Mr. Gore himself than about any real problems our environment faces. Mr. Gore if you really wanted to make a campaign film - shorten it & call it what it really is. | negative |
Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed " Who is Eric Roberts ? " . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production <br /><br />Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD | negative |
I just purchased and viewed the DVD of this film. The DVD transfer is from last year, 2001. This 1988 film is really a great little film. Overlooked by most people. I saw it in the theater in 1988 and have loved it ever since. I love the opening shot of Pittsburgh (not Baltimore, as another user commented). Makes Pittsburgh look like one of the most beautiful cities in the world! And I must say, the tour of Pitts on the garbage truck with Nicky is a very scenic, interesting one! Tom Hulce, as everyone else has said, gives a remarkable, wonderful performance. The DVD is a good transfer, with no extras, but a widescreen format. I recommend it to those who love the movie. | positive |
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.<br /><br />I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.<br /><br />To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.<br /><br /> | negative |
The title says it all.<br /><br />I'm not a film critic nor will I act like the rest of the snobbish people commenting on this movie.<br /><br />Obviously this movie didn't have a multi-million dollar budget, but the plot was very well done, the acting was awesome and the cinematography was great! It looked like you all had a lot of fun making this movie! I voted 9 out of 10 as the sound was strong on only one channel instead of both, but I imagine this might have been an error in the recording of the DVD.<br /><br />I'll definitely be checking out other movies produced by Brain Damage Films! <br /><br />Dylan O'Leary, cast and crew, I thank you! | positive |
This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.<br /><br />When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).<br /><br />Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.<br /><br />Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.<br /><br />As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!! | negative |
I must admit that at the beginning, I was sort of reticent about watching this movie. I thought it was this stupid, little, romantic film about a French woman who meets in the train an American and decides to visit Vienna with him. I was not actually enchanted about this kind of script, since it continued to make me believe that it is just a movie. Still, I watched it! And I was amazed..."Before Sunrise" is one of the few films who dare to talk in a rather philosophical way, wondering about the fact that in the moment of our birth, we are sentenced to death, or that it is a middling idea that fact that a couple should rest together for eternity, or that, we, humans, can afford sometimes to live in fairy-tales. <br /><br />The ending was wonderfully chosen (we do not know if they will meet again in six months, at six o'clock, in Vienna's station) -in our optimism, we sincerely hope so. The actors acted in a very good manner, so, that, I began to believe that I, myself could live a love-story just like this. | positive |
Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).<br /><br />Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.<br /><br />There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake? | negative |
Norm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother. | negative |
This landmark film can now be seen in two different versions on the Grapevine Video release which also includes the English translation of Selma Lagerlof's novel which she based on a Swedish folktale. The first version is the Swedish edit under the title of THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE. The second version is a reconstruction of the way it was shown in the United States under the title of THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT as released by Metro (before it was M-G- M). The actual US release has long vanished but a detailed review in The New York Times lets us know how the scenes were reordered for domestic release -- and both are fascinating to see. Each version of this film was presented at The Organ Loft in Salt Lake City with live theatre organ scores provided by artist Blaine Gale. A live recording was made of these performances and are included on the Grapevine Video DVD along with the novel and notes about the two versions. While THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE follows the order of Lagerlof's novel, THE STROKE OF MIDNIGHT is in some ways easier to follow. Seeing the two different edits is an education in how silent films could be changed effectively for release in different countries. <br /><br />Some viewers look at this film as a horror film which it certainly is not. This is a morality play with shades of the supernatural used to hit home its stark message. The directing and lead performance by the great Victor Sjostrom were way ahead of their time. It's easy to see why M-G-M brought him to Hollywood to direct such films as Lillian Gish in THE SCARLET LETTER and THE WIND as well as Lon Chaney in HE WHO GETS SLAPPED. In America he was known as Victor Seastrom. He would also star in the lead role of Ingmar Bergman's WILD STRAWBERRIES, giving a masterful performance. Bergman was greatly influenced by KORKARLEN or THE PHANTOM CARRIAGE in his earlier days. <br /><br />This is a powerful film that is well worth taking some time to discover and study. The Grapevine Video release is an excellent way to do this. | positive |
Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE. | negative |
Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper still can turn the world on with their smiles. The combined talent of these two wonderful stars make this combination reunion/newstart movie work. Watch it and look forward to hitting sixty! Mary defies the youth oriented society with wit and charm. A touch of drama adds 2000 realism. A TV series follow up would broaden the new characters and give us a chance to occaisionally see Lou Grant, Phyllis, Sue Ann, Murray, and Georgette! | positive |
Flipper is a nice heartwarming movie for whole family. It's obviously not a great movie, Free Willy looks much better almost in every component of film making. Possibly, at times it becomes a bit naive , and the writing and the script are not the best part of the movie, but it's a entertaining film with very good cinematography (including underwater shots) and some important moral messages. Elijah Wood proves himself one more time as an incredibly talented and underrated actor. He can make bad movie watchable, okay movie - good, good - great and great movie becomes all time classic. Paul Hogan performance also was very good and he is completely fit to his role. As I already say above, whole cinematography was very good. But underwater shots definitely is the best parts. So Flipper is a perfect way if you want to see nice, sweet and entertaining movie. If you like me become sick and tired of modern Hollywood trash, filled with sex, violence, vulgarity and profanity you most likely would like this movie. <br /><br />My rating: 7,7 out of 10. Feel free for mailing me about any of my comments and posts here. <br /><br />Sorry for my bad English. | positive |
I loved it! Fred MacMurray is wonderful as Skid Johnson, a somewhat conceited, proud yet at the same time very vulnerable saxophone player who is in love with Maggie (Carole Lombard), who's always there for him. They meet in Panama after Maggie comes off a ship and end up in a bar with Anthony Quinn. Tony gets punched in the nose after her insults Maggie by thinking her a loose woman - all because she took off her hat in public. Big brawl and Maggie ends up stuck in Panama. Romance. Carole and Arthur are great together. Maggie is always there for him whenever he needs her. She urges him to go to NY where (well watch the movie and find out). They have these wonderful scenes together where she sings in his arms while he plays the saxophone. I definitely recommend it. | positive |
I've been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on "Horror Incorporated" and "Creature Feature Night". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever seen a "horror" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like "Aww, you're right. No big deal". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.<br /><br />The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.<br /><br />Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years. | negative |
Amazing performance from Simon Pegg who just gets better and better with every role. As usual he plays the part of a very cringy character who makes you want to hide behind your cushion in embarrassment for him sometimes, but thats what Pegg is all about.<br /><br />The laughs were regular and eye watering and everyone of them aimed at Penn. The movie was very cleverly put together where every character plays a very sophisticated and serious part with Penn being the only humour involved which is a huge credit to the Director Robert Weide.<br /><br />And I cant let this one go without a quick round of applause to Gilliam Anderson who shone throughout. Highly recommended to all. | positive |
Delightful! It never pretends to be a masterpiece, but it's a mini-gem of late seventies British comedy. Given that the producers wanted to sell it abroad, it stars an American (the late character actor Richard Jordan), but at least he isn't the usual dull Hollywood hunk type. Surrounding him is the cream of British character acting talent, led by a wonderfully waspish and superior David Niven.<br /><br />Niven's Ivan the Terrible naturally gets the best one liners and all the best reaction shots. He also manages to be surprisingly menacing and intimidatingly dangerous. The moment in the snooker club when he drops the charming facade and threatens Richard Jordan will come as a shock to those viewers who think of Niven as being only a light drawing room comedy star. He is filled with genuine power and ruthlessness as we see all at once how Ivan earned his nickname. All the more surprising given how ill Niven was at the time. Shortly after filming this production he lost his powers of speech to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (known as Lou Gehrig's disease). This is the last picture Niven made where you can hear his own voice, being dubbed thereafter by the comic impressionist Sid Caesar.<br /><br />Alongside him you can spot numerous familiar faces from seventies cinema and television. Elke Sommer (flashing her breasts in true seventies era politically incorrect bimbo mode), Oliver Tobias, Michael Angelis, Brian Croucher, Davy Kaye etc, etc. Davy Kaye gets one of the biggest laughs as he holds up a security guard caught making a phone call. "Who you ringing?!....Bloody Dial-A-Disc! You gormless git!" <br /><br />Great shots of London street locations; making the film a period patina time capsule of red phone boxes with chunky round-dial manual handsets, black cabs driven by "Cor blimey, gov!" cockneys, and ladies and gents modelling all manner of deeply dodgy late seventies retro leisure wear and hair styles. <br /><br />Unlike the classic Ealing comedies of an earlier era, the 'hero' is allowed to get away with his crime and escape to a life in the sun. How times had changed! The morality code by which crooks in films always had to be seen to be punished had long gone by the seventies, with anti-heroes like Pinky Green earning status through their cheeky anti-authoritarianism and determination to 'cock a snook' at a stuffy capitalist establishment of be-suited fat cat businessmen. We are encouraged to cheer as Pinky makes off, unpunished and free as a bird with his ill gotten gains. Compare that to the ending of The Lavender Hill Mob!<br /><br />Highly entertaining, quaintly dated in its fashions and attitudes, and the stuff of late night cult viewing. Perfect to watch at midnight after the pubs have shut; if you're of a certain age, are feeling a touch nostalgic, and have always wanted to see David Niven in a branch of McDonalds, silently intimidating an American via the use of a retractable telescope! | positive |
Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in "Down To Earth." As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of "American Pie" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy "Heaven Can Wait," itself a rehash of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in "Lethal Weapon 4," "Dogma," or "Nurse Betty" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, "Down To Earth" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face "American Pie." This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent castamong them "The Full Monty's" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This," "SCTV's" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, "Down To Earth" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of "Hannibal") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of "Jerry Maguire"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of "Stay Tuned"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.<br /><br />Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of "American Pie") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of "Sweet November") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.<br /><br />"Down To Earth" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of "Heaven Can Wait." The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of "Heaven Can Wait" based on his philosophy to "Do Something you can only do when you're hot." Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in "Down to Earth," Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with "Down to Earth" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of "Down to Earth" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score. | negative |
The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".<br /><br />The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.<br /><br />If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion. | positive |
I have not seen many low budget films i must admit, but this is the worst movie ever probably, the main character the old man talked like, he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds, a 5 year old could act better. The story had the most awful plot, and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top, i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was, and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. I cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters, instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. I think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman, i think the only thing OK with the budget was the make up, but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. Awful simply awful. | negative |
Perhaps it's about time we declare 2007 to be "The International Year of the Cinematic Crocodile"! The ridiculous "Primeval" came first, about a croc named Gustave (!) ruling the swamps in Burundi. Then there was "Lake Placid 2", a low-profiled and made-for-TV sequel to a forgettable original. Thirdly, there's this incredibly derivative and soporific piece of Aussie horror and, finally, I have yet to see the promising "Rogue". The last one is likely to be the best, considering the involvement of the upcoming Aussie horror talent Greg McLean ("Wolf Creek"). "Black Water" certainly isn't a complete waste of time and film, but it's another pretty pointless survival flick that confuses real-life agony with horror. Pardon my bluntness, especially since I honestly feel sorry for the people who went through this ordeal, but depicting three characters sitting in a tree and whining for more than a full hour is not my idea of sheer suspense! Three young people travel through Northern Australia and decide to spend a day of fishing in the remote swamp areas. It doesn't take too long before a gigantic and ferocious crocodile capsizes their little boat and devours the guide. Grace, Lee and Adam barely manage to escape the reptile's hungry teeth by climbing up a tree. Even though he remains unseen most of the time, the croc patiently lies in waiting and makes it impossible for them to leave the swamp alive. Yes, it does sound an awful lot like the plot of "Open Water" indeed. Replace the numerous unseen sharks with one giant unseen crocodile and the open sea with an equally inescapable Aussie swamp, and there you have it. Oh well, "Black Water" at least features some rare moments of excitement and one impressively designed water monster. It has to be said, the croc looks fabulously groovy and you anxiously count down towards every next time he wildly emerges from the water. The three-headed cast does whatever they can to keep their characters interesting, but how do you achieve this by sitting in a tree the whole time? The based-on-true-events concept obviously causes a number of restrictions, like limited images of the fantastic filming locations, dialogs and amiable character drawings. | negative |
The book, while not particularly great, was decent, but this movie completely changes it. A lot of the elements of the story are consistent between the book and the movie, but Dr. Ross' character goes from a creatively written character who lives for money and ends up causing the volcanic eruption with her greed to a heart-on-her-sleeve damsel in distress who won't do anything if she even catches the slightest hint that it might be less than noble. When movies change the book that much but keep the same name, it should be a crime. | negative |
It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre. | negative |
I've tried to remember the name of this movie for years and years. Finally, read something today, 03/09/2005, that mentioned Stacy Keach's name, and it reminded me that I had seen a movie that he was in in 1974 at the Atlanta Film Festival, so, I did a Google search for Keach's movies and found The Gravy Train. We were supposed to see Duddy Kravitz at the film festival, but for some reason they were unable to show it, and instead substituted The Gravy Train. We were terribly disappointed that we weren't going to be able to see the much hyped Duddy Kravitz, and had heard nothing of The Gravy Train, and have heard nothing of it since.<br /><br />However, I recall we were pleasantly surprised at how good the movie was, and as I recall, it was quite humorous. Would love to find it on tape. | positive |
I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad. | negative |
EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007) ** Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips, Jimmy Bennett, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, John Michael Higgins, Jonah Hill, Molly Shannon, Ed Helms, (Cameo: Jon Stewart as himself) Strained 'sequel' to "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" with Carell's jerk anchorman Evan Baxter leaving TV to begin his stint as a freshman Congressional rep has his hands full when God (Freeman reprising his holy role; Jim Carrey wisely avoided the 'calling') demands he build an ark like Noah and the hilarity ensues (or should have). The Godforsaken sitcom-y script by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow is absolutely lame and only Carell's amiable persona transcends his vain Evan into something resembling a human being. The end result is a lot of bird poop gags and overall bloat (reportedly costing $175 M for the CGI F/X). Sykes steals the show as Evan's sarcastic assistant. Sacrilegiously unfunny. (Dir: Tom Shadyac) | negative |
*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.<br /><br />Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, "Why did you do it, Gus?"<br /><br />In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.<br /><br />Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.<br /><br />To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous "bathroom scene" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. "See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!"<br /><br />If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be disappointed. | negative |
Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.<br /><br />I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.<br /><br />The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power. <br /><br />I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.<br /><br />Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.) <br /><br />So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.<br /><br />If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school. | positive |
Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through. | negative |
C.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware. | negative |
Can a film be too faithful to the book upon which it is based? Judging from the time-spanning 2007 adaptation of Khaled Hosseini's huge 2003 seller, the answer is rather ironically "yes". Like many, I was enthralled by the book, an impressive first effort by the Afghan-American writer/physician. So obviously were director Marc Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction") and screenwriter David Benioff ("Troy"), who pay meticulous attention to the most significant details of the story within the film's 127-minute running time. Yet, the seamless tapestry of heartfelt events in Hosseini's novel often comes across as episodic and truncated because Forster and Benioff are sincerely trying hard to remain true to the full scope of the story within the time constraints. Part of the challenge is how Hosseini carefully used symbolic acts to provide literary, then-and-now symmetry to what is essentially a three-act story, a technique that can come across as somewhat contrived on screen.<br /><br />However, the filmmakers do the most important things right, specifically giving the viewer an intimate look into a hidden culture heretofore conveyed through CNN news reports, ensuring authenticity by having characters speak in the Dari Persian dialect of the Afghan language, and capturing the emotional entanglements of the complex narrative. The first part of the movie is set in 1978 Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion and the eventual takeover of the Taliban. The focus is on the relationship between Amir, the son of an affluent businessman named Baba, and the devoted Hassan, the son of his father's servant. Connected by their mutual love of kite running, the two are thick as thieves until a tragic event separates them irreparably. Unable to find the courage that comes so naturally to his father, Amir is crippled by guilt for not having rescued Hassan from an unspeakable act performed by a trio of local bullies. Forster makes especially palpable the ethnic tensions between the Hazara and the Pashtun in Afghanistan.<br /><br />Upon the 1979 invasion by Soviet troops, Amir and Baba flee to the U.S. where the story picks up their story nine years later in Fremont, California, a suburban enclave of Afghan émigrés. Baba is reduced to working in a gas station and operating a flea market kiosk. Amir meets a local Afghan girl and marries. This is the film's least interesting passage since Benioff's treatment gives short shrift to ancillary characters like Amir's wife Soraya and most critically, Amir is portrayed by necessity as a reticent young man with a downward cast toward his self-esteem. The final section flashes forward twelve years where Amir, upon publication of his first book, is summoned back to Taliban-dictated Afghanistan to rescue Hassan's son from the Taliban, as a means to atone for his cowardice years earlier. There is true suspense and fear generated in this portion of the story as shocking revelations and old acquaintances come back to haunt Amir during his journey.<br /><br />A British actor of Egyptian heritage, Khalid Abdalla (the lead hijacker in "United 93") has the central role of Amir as an adult, a challenging role since he has to convey a constant sense of shame and diminished self-worth until the end. The other professional actors fare better - Shaun Toub (Tony Stark's savior Yinsen in the current "Iron Man") as Baba's business partner Rahim Khan, who holds the key to the truth; Atossa Leoni quietly affecting as Soraya; and best of all, Iranian actor Homayoun Ershadi who brings pride and dignity to Baba. Three young non-professionals were recruited from Kabul's school system to play the key child roles, and all are quite good. Zekeria Ebrahimi is up to the challenge of the toughest part as young Amir, and Ali Danish Bakhtyari is poignant as Hassan's nearly catatonic son Sohrab. But it's the sad-eyed, moon-faced Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada who will break your heart as the young Hassan, especially in the devastating pomegranate-throwing scene. It's fair to say his performance is on par with the young Enzo Staiola's in Vittorio de Sica's classic "Bicycle Thieves".<br /><br />The technical aspects are well done, in particular, Roberto Schaefer's clean cinematography (western China convincingly substitutes for Afghanistan), Alberto Iglesias' evocative score, and even the CGI effects showcasing the kites in turbulent flight. The 2008 DVD has a solid set of extras beginning with an insightful commentary from Forster, Hosseini, and Benioff, although some of their dialogue seems rather forced. There are two featurettes included - the first is the 14-minute "Words from the Kite Runner", which focuses on Hosseini's connection to the story and the development of the novel, and the second is the 25-minute "Images from the Kite Runner", a more standard behind-the-scenes look at the production. Rounding out the extras are the original theatrical trailer, a few previews, and a PSA from Hosseini on how to help the Afghans during their current time of need. | positive |
Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies. | negative |
An independent feature can now be seen as both a work of film art and a video resume. Enter Broken, and aggressively promoted, twenty minute short with style and enthusiams to spare. But is it any good as a film, or does it only work as a demo piece? Ah, there in lies the rub.<br /><br />Broken is the story of Bonnie Clayton who is abducted after awakening from a reoccurring nightmare one night by "a sadistic stranger and his colorful entourage" (quote from the video box). As she's held captive, it becomes obvious that her abductors know things about her that even she didn't know about herself. While they question her, a black-clad soldier guns his way into their hideout in an attempt to rescue her. Mayhem ensues.<br /><br />Fortunately for us, director Alex Ferrari seems to know what he's doing, or at least he's very good at faking it. Broken does not suffer from any lack of visual flair, which is especially commendable considering its budget and the inexperience of all involved. What it does suffer from is weak and kind of derivative writing. Think Long Kiss Goodnight meets The Matrix, written ten minutes after reading Fight Club. The good news for Ferrari and producer/writer Jorge Rodriguez is that the story elements are easily ignored for the oodles of eye candy on display. Does the plot really matter that much in a twenty minute short meant to show off the technical skills of its creators? No, not really.<br /><br />Though it would be unfair of me to overlook any negative aspects in light of the films budget and length. Broken is no genre classic. The biggest problem was that it actually would have worked better as a full-length feature. The final "twist" doesn't get enough build up time to be shocking. If Ferrari were allowed the time to slow burn the feature as needed, plot elements would seem less random, and the film more complete. Here's to knowing he's getting the chance.<br /><br />Audio Broken's Dolby Digital 5.1 presentation is second to none in the indie world. I've never heard such aggressive surround from such a small feature. The Matrix inspired soundtrack is very rich and deep, gunshots have punch, and even the dialogue gets in on the surround effects. Of everything presented on this disc, it is the audio that speaks the praise for modern independent DVD production. Also included is an equally impressive Dolby 2.0 surround track, which is the menu default.<br /><br />Extras There are literally hours of making of features to be found on this disc. There are so many extras, in fact, that I find it unrealistic to list and describe each of them here, while still expecting my readers to continue reading. Whatever shortcomings the actual short may have, the DVD is unprecedented in its informational resources. People who enjoyed the film can learn all there is to know about its production, including everything from the conceptual art to the promotional campaign. Those with plans to make an indie film of their own can learn just about everything they need to know from these features.<br /><br />The extras are broken down into categorical menus. These include: pre-production, production, post-production, after the short, and cast and crew bios. From a critical standpoint, I found that some of the sections were quite short. Had they been edited into one featurette per menu option, they would've been less frustrating to navigate, as the curser defaults to the top selection with every return to the main section menu. This is, of course, just nitpicking, but perhaps for future DVD releases the filmmakers will take my advice to heart.<br /><br />It has six audio commentaries and hours of interview footage and talented people, and despite the consonant salesmanship, their true colours do shine through.<br /><br />The willingness to share their film-making secrets with anyone who picks up this DVD is quite generous. From the extras I learned what editing and effects software is most reliable and effective, what brand of camera creates the most professional look for the lowest price, even where to get cheap air soft weaponry. On top of this, I was given several alternate options, in case I found myself unable to locate any products used on this particular production. Wannabe filmmakers unwilling to read a book on the subject would do well to watch this DVD.<br /><br />Overall I've scored the actual short as a 6 out of 10, but wish there was an option for feature length potential and effort, because I'd have scored it an 8 or 9 in these fields. I recommend the DVD for its features and as a perfect example of what can be done with a mere eight thousand American dollars. Those who purchase the DVD can think of themselves as ghost producers for a larger project, as the more attention these guys get, the more funding the feature-length version will get. | positive |
Yes, I had the misfortune of watching this film when I was younger at a friends house as his mother was a teacher and she wanted to screen the movie and see if there were any inappropriate scenes that a parent might object to. Well other than the unfunny jokes I think this one was in the clear, well the unfunny jokes and the strange scene where the look a like Ernest hits on a girl. So yes, Ernest gets thrown in jail thanks to a look a like and proceeds to try to escape and there is other stuff to it like him becoming magnetized at one point, shooting electricity, and in a very painful to watch finale flying. There are a couple of jokes, but nothing to much to mention except for the gun carved from soap...I think that is the only scene me or my friend's mother laughed out loud at. This and camp are the only two Ernest movies I have ever seen and from what I have seen in them I am not going to track down the other films. Ernest was good in small doses, but a movie is just to much even when it is as short as this one. I figure though the films made money, mainly because all you need is Varney and a location and a theme and you have your movie. | negative |
What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.<br /><br />The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is. | negative |
Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:<br /><br />-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")<br /><br />-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)<br /><br />-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")<br /><br />-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")<br /><br />-and the list goes on...<br /><br />The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.<br /><br />No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.<br /><br />And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).<br /><br />AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer. | negative |
The operative rule in the making of this film seems to have been "never make a 1 minute scene when you can make it a 10 minute scene." This was a principle set right from the start with an interminably long portrayal of the graduation of the Harvard class of 1870. The point of that scene, I suppose, was to introduce some of the primary figures in the story and give a bit of their background - which is somewhat effective when comparing the idealism of the Harvard graduation ceremony to the realism of life in Johnson County, Wyoming, but it just keeps going and going, and that sets the stage for a film that features repeated stretches of mind-numbing nothingness, made even worse by the fact that I found a significant amount of the dialogue to be almost incoherent. In the end, I couldn't even watch this in one sitting. I got through about half of it and had to set it aside for a couple of days before I could drag myself back to see how it turned out.<br /><br />My reaction to this movie in many ways is a shame, because there are positives here. The performances are generally of a high calibre, especially from Kris Kristofersson as Averill, Christopher Walken as Champion and Isabelle Huppert as Ella. The basic story - interspersed as it is around that ever-present mind-numbing nothingness - is potentially interesting, focusing on the efforts of immigrants to establish themselves in Johnson County and a local cattle company's efforts to stop them by killing a number of them in collaboration with the government and the military. There's also some absolutely breathtaking scenery shots. Having said that, the whole thing could frankly have been done in half the time - and should have been. In the end, all those potential positives are washed out by - again - the mind-numbing nothingness that the movie seems to revolve around. Seriously - 2/10. | negative |
First of all this movie starts out on a really dumb note: A 10-year-old girl, playing around in a moving vehicle, decides it would be funny to cover up her mom's eyes with her hands, and then causes a horrific accident which kills the mom....duh....I am sorry, there is positively no 10-year-old that dumb. The rest of the movie does not get much better. After the death of the mother by the apparent dumbest 10-year-old on the planet, the dad moves the family to Genova, Italy, where he is to teach at a local university, but here is the clincher: he does not speak a word of Italian! Then the little girl has "visions" of mommy (who she killed), and often subsequent night terrors which always, always end by the father holding and coddling her. Then we are forced to watch this family continually get lost and then found and then hug and then cry and lost and then found (followed by of course more hugging and crying) to the point that I was actually wishing for some sort of natural disaster to just wipe all of these vapid, ignorant people off the planet. Do not get me wrong, because I love indies, but an indie about dumb people (and I mean really dumb) is simply ridiculous and pointless. It is really a shame that this movie was based on such insipid characters wallowing in such retarded scenarios, because the locale was interesting. | negative |
I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a "great underrated film". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of "Dial Help".<br /><br />What a waste.<br /><br />Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with "Bare Essentials", "Sketch Artist", or even "Golden Child". | negative |
Did you ever watch a really bad movie and get mad about it? Even a movie you didn't have high expectations for? Well I just rented the movie "Dead Line". This is the US video title for "Interferencia". Now I have seen a lot of bad movies, and watched a lot of "B" titles, but this is in another league all its own. It was put out on "The Asylum" label, and anyone that rents a lot of direct to video horror films knows this label. When you rent one of there's you know what your getting. A lot of marginal acting low budget horror, but usually still pretty good. Not this one. The acting by the three leads was beyond bad. Even fast forwarding couldn't help. The tag line on the front of the box says"..in the tradition of DePalma's Body Double. The nerve to compare this to that classic movie. The only true comment is "The screams you will hear are real". Yea you will be the one screaming if you rent this. | negative |
I have just seen this film, and fallen in love with it. There is a little bit of something for everyone, and its a particular free for all when it comes to the romance between Lachlan and Lil. When they are on the beach, I nearly cried... there is the unspoken realization that time is the most precious commodity and it is most evident when they are together. This idea taken from several angles, from marriage to sibblings to finding love in the least conventional of places. The film almost makes you long for that kind of desperation when you know that tomorrow could very well be your last. Crowe was particularly wonderful in his role of Lachlan. I've always had a soft spot for the accent, but I nearly melted with his portrayal of his character. The way this film was shot is also beautiful, with the music, backdrop of the open fields, and superb acting. All together, this is a wonderful film that tugs at all of human emotions. | positive |
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles. | negative |
One of the best ever. Direction, fotography, a thrilling and dramatic history, wonderful soundtrack and, most of all, the incredible credibility of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, the best and most underestimated "under-40 generation" actor. After seeing this movie i guess if there's anyone who couldn't have any doubt about giving death to another man, in spite of the ugly things he could have done? | positive |
This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale and great humor, however other then that it's nothing special. All the characters are pretty cool, and the film is entertaining throughout, plus Jackie Chan is simply amazing in this!. Jackie and Wai-Man Chan had fantastic chemistry together, and are both very funny!, and i thought the main opponent looked really menacing!, however the dubbing was simply terrible!. The character development is above average for this sort of thing!, and the main fight is simply fantastic!, plus some of the bumps Jackie takes in this one are harsh!. There is a lot of really silly and goofy humor in this, but it amused me, and the ending is hilarious!, plus all the characters are quite likable. It's pretty cheap looking but generally very well made, and while it does not have the amount of fighting you would expect from a Jackie Chan flick, it does enough to keep you watching, plus one of my favorite moments in this film is when Jackie (Dragon) and Wai-Man Chan(Tiger), are playing around with a rifle and it goes off!. This is an above average Jackie Chan flick, due to the fantastic finale, and great humor, however other then that it's nothing great, still it's well worth the watch!. The Direction is good. Jackie Chan does a good job here with solid camera work, fantastic angles and keeping the film at a fast pace for the most part. The Acting is very good!. Jackie Chan is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, hilarious, as usual does some crazy stunts, had fantastic chemistry with Wai-Man Chan, kicked that ass, and played this wonderful cocky character, he was amazing!, i just wished they would stop dubbing him!. (Jackie Rules!!!!!). Wai-Man Chan is funny as Jackie's best friend, i really liked him, he is also a very good martial artist. Rest of the cast do OK i guess. Overall well worth the watch!. *** out of 5 | positive |
This is a must see for anybody who loves thriller's specially political thriller. One scene that stands out is Milgram experiment it is shot to perfection very rarely do we get to see a movie shot and scripted the way this movie is presented.<br /><br />The movie starts with a Kennedy like assassination and a three member team is constituted to investigate the assassination. However one of the member does not agree with the final findings of the committee. As per the terms set that member would initiate a one man investigation into the assassination. This investigation gets him involved in into to deep and dark secrets of high office politics and the way they are controlled. | positive |
Hi<br /><br />my name is Jessica, i'm Italian!<br /><br />Some time ago I have seen this film : ' For the very first time', with Corin Corky Nemec. It was the story of Micheal and Mary Margaret. I need to know the title of the song of the most important love scene in Micheal's bedroom.<br /><br />In Italy this film hasn't been programmed for many years and I don't know how to find the song. A lot of thanks for who can help me! I love this film! Is Very romantic! The soundtrack is beautiful! I love Cheryl Pollack! Jessica | positive |
Michael Bassett's film 'Solomon Kane' (based on the character of the same name created by Robert E. Howard) is a disappointing Fantasy Action-Adventure film, that despite having a few scenes of genius falls flat with its awkward pacing, poor characterisation and general dullness. Solomon Kane (James Purefoy) is a mercenary of Queen Elizabeth's army fighting in Africa, where he comes face-to-face with the Devil's Reaper a demon who collects the Devil's debts i.e. souls refusing to go to hell just yet, he evades the Reaper and starts a new life in an English monastery. With this new life, Solomon has left-behind his culture of violence and bloodshed and instead now embraces the values of peace and non-values. But once he is expelled from the monastery due to the fear of the Devil's Reaper returning, he must travel back to his home in Devon and along the way he befriends a travelling family of puritans heading to the New World. On their journey through the British counties, the family is attacked, and their daughter Meredith (Rachel Hurd-Wood) is abducted by the evil sorcerer Malachi's army, which is lead on the front lines by the mysterious Masked Rider. Now a man of peace, Solomon must go back to his former life as a man of unrepentant violence and destruction to save Meredith.<br /><br />Despite having great source material to work from, and build upon to create potentially an exciting and enduring medieval action-adventure film, the film fails in three key areas. The pacing of this film is terrible, which may have a lot to do with its incredibly short run time of only one hour and forty minutes (and this is most likely a consequence of the fact that they wish to turn this film into a trilogy). Constantly jumping between of drama and self-characterisation to that of action and muddy bloodshed, somewhat kills the excitement of the action sequences. Instead of keeping the audience on the edge of their seats frothing with the eagle-eyed anticipation, the film instead feels incredibly subdued and, this follows on the next piece of criticism, dull. Despite being touted as an 'action-adventure' film or in some circles an 'action-epic', 'Solomon Kane' is almost most certainly not. The action is mundane and dull, and is generally finished before you have the chance to admire the beauty of a decapitation. Finally, aside from Solomon himself, there is very little characterisation within this film. For example we know little and because of this, care little, about the young woman that Soloman sets out on his journey to save. And I imagine again the filmmaker would refer this criticism to the fact that there is most likely going to be a second film which will hopefully touch upon these aspects that this film surely missed.<br /><br />It isn't an entirely terrible film however. James Purefoy is gives a fantastic performance as Solomon, the mercenary who must decide whether or not to fall back on his conscience or his blade, and how his decisions will impact not just upon himself, but those around him as well. While respect, admiration, and acknowledgement must also go to Bassett and his crew as well, for creating vivid locations that beautifully reflects the period in which they are filming. At times, it is hard not to get carried away with admiring the beauty of the locations, shot composition and mise-en-scene at show here. Which certainly shows that a lot of time and effort has been placed into this film, unfortunately however that is not to say the same for the story and characters at hand. 'Solomon Kane' certainly had the potential to be something more than simply an 'action-epic,' however it seems that once again the lack of any real depth in the story and characters has resulted in Michael Bassett creating nothing more than a one-dimensional look at swordplay during the Medieval period. | negative |
"Fanfan la tulipe" is still Gerard Philippe's most popular part and it began the swashbuckler craze which throve in the French cinema in the 1955-1965 years.It made Gina Lollobrigida a star (Lollobrigida and Philippe would team up again in René Clair"s "Belles de nuit" the same year.<br /><br />"Fanfan la tulipe" is completely mad,sometimes verging on absurd .Henri Jeanson's witty lines -full of dark irony- were probably influenced by Voltaire and "Candide" .Antimilitarism often comes to the fore:"these draftees radiate joie de vivre -and joie de mourir when necessary (joy of life and joy of death)""It becomes necessary to recruit men when the casualties outnumber the survivors" "You won the battle without the thousands of deaths you had promised me, king Louis XV complains,but no matter ,let's wait for the next time."<br /><br />A voice over comments the story at the beginning and at the end and history is given a rough ride:height of irony,it's a genuine historian who speaks!<br /><br />Christian-Jaque directs the movie with gusto and he knows only one tempo :accelerated.<br /><br />Remake in 2003 with Vincent Perez and Penelope Cruz.I have not seen it but I do not think it had to be made in the first place. | positive |
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie. | negative |
John Travolta, the biggest honkeytonk in the world, and a mechanical bull...what more can you ask for! Yeah, you're probably not going to get many surprises or deep meaning in this one. Yet, I have always found it fairly enjoyable to watch this redneck romance. Bud (Travolta) and Sissy (Debra Winger) meet at Gilley's and fall in love. They have all the difficulties you might expect a hardcore redneck couple to have. The honkeytonk scenes are fun with dancing, mechanical bull riding, and -of course- the required brawls. It has a good, 1980 country soundtrack, featuring "Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places", "The Devil Went Down to Georgia", and "Hello Texas" by my favorite Jimmy Buffett. Break out your cowboy boots and have a boot-scootin' boogie! <br /><br />*** (Out of 4) | positive |
I, as a teenager really enjoyed this movie! Mary Kate and Ashley worked great together and everyone seemed so at ease. I thought the movie plot was very good and hope everyone else enjoys it to! Be sure and rent it!! Also they had some great soccer scenes for all those soccer players! :) | positive |
Well it is a good movie. However, you have to admit that Van Dame's movies haven't been so great lately. On the other hand if you are a hardcore van Dame fan you should watch this as there is a huge improvement with fighting scenes. Also What i really liked is the music beautiful music. am sure this will kill time if you are action fan. As for Isaac Florentine the director of Undisputed 2, i don't think he did a good job as he did with Undisputed.I cant wait when one day Van Dame's movies hit the cinemas before the DVD. Maybe, one day:).<br /><br />In the end it worth the watch if you got no other action movies to watch, this could make your hour and half fun. | positive |
Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future. | negative |
by Dane Youssef <br /><br />"Coonskin" is film, by the one and only Ralph Bakshi, is reportedly a satirical indictment of blaxploitation films and negative black stereotypes, as well as a look at life black in modern America (modern for the day, I mean--1975). Paramount dropped it like a hot potato that just burst into flame.<br /><br />But this is a Bakshi film, controversial, thrilling, and a must-see almost by definition alone. Not just another random "shock-jock" of a movie which tries to shock for the sake of shock. It's by Ralph Bakshi. Anyone who knows the name knows that if HE made a movie, he has something big to say...<br /><br />Although it's roots are based in cheap blaxploitation, "Coonskin" isn't just another campy knock-off of mainstream white film or any kind of throwaway flick. "Coonskin" wants to be more. It aims it's sights higher and fries some much bigger fish.<br /><br />The movie doesn't just poke fun at the genre. Nor does it just indict black people, but actually seems to show love, beauty and heart in the strangest places.<br /><br />"Coonskin" tells a story out of some convicts awaiting a jail-break. The fact that it's even possible to break out of a prison in the "Coonskin" world alone makes it old-fashioned.<br /><br />One of the inmates tells a story about a trio of black brothers in Harlem named Brother Bear, Brother Rabbit, Preacher Fox who want respect and a piece of the action and are willing to get it by any means necessary. The Itallian mob is running all the real action.<br /><br />Big name black musicians star: Barry White and Scatman Crothers, as well as Charles Gordone, the first black playwright to take home the Pulitzer. Something big is happening here obviously.<br /><br />The movie plays out like a descent into this world, this side of the racial divide. From an angry, hip, deep, soulful black man with a hate in his heart and a gun in his hand.<br /><br />Bakshi's films never know the meaning of the word "sublety." This one looks like it's never even heard of the word. But maybe a subject like this needs extremism. Real sledgehammer satire. Some subjects can't be tackled gently.<br /><br />Bakshi is god-dammed merciless. Here, no member or minority of the Harlem scene appears unscathed.<br /><br />The characters here are "animated" to "real" all depending on what the mood and situation are. The animated characters and the human ones all share the same reality and are meant to be taken just as literally.<br /><br />Bakshi never just shows ugly caricatures just for shock value. He always has something to say. Nor is black-face is gratuitously. Here, unlike in Spike Lee's "Bamboozled," he seems to be using it to try and really say something.<br /><br />Like 99.9% of all of Bakshi's films, this one incorporates animation and live-action. Usually at the same time. Bakshki isn't just being gimmicky here. All of this technique is all intertwined, meshing together while saying something.<br /><br />Somehow, this one feels inevitably dated. Many of these types of films (Bakshi's included) are very topical, very spur of the moment. They reflect the certain trend for the day, but looking back of them years later, there's just an unmistakable feeling of nostalgia (as well as timeless truth).<br /><br />Even though the music, clothes, slang and the city clearly looks like photos that belong in a time capsule, the attitude, the spirit and the heart remain the same no matter what f--king ear it is. Anyone who's really seen the movies, the state of things and has been in company of the people know what I'm talking about.<br /><br />Even some of the of the black characters are a bunny (junglebunny), a big ol' bear and a fox. One of the most sour and unsavory racist characters is a dirty Harlem cop who's hot on the trail of these "dirty n-----s" after the death of a cop. But for him, it's not just business. Nor is it for the rest of the brothers who wear the shield. It's just pure sadistic racist pleasure of hurting blacks.<br /><br />The sequence involving the Godfather and his lady is one of the most moving pieces in the whole film, of which there are many. It plays out like an opera or a ballet.<br /><br />The promo line: WARNING: "This film offends everybody!" This is not just hype. Proceed with extreme caution.<br /><br />You have been warned...<br /><br />by Dane Youssef | positive |
Otto Preminger's Dana Andrews cycle of films noirs are among the (largely) unsung jewels of the genre. Because they lack paranoia, misogyny or hysteria, they may have seemed out of place at the time, but the clear-eyed imagery, the complex play with identity, masculinity and representation, the subversion of traditional psychological tenets, the austere, geometrical style all seem startlingly modern today, and very similar to Melville. The lucid ironies of this film are so loaded, brutal and ironic that the 'happy' ending is one of the cruellest in Hollywood history. Brilliant on the level of entertaining thriller as well, tense, and packed with double-edged dialogue. | positive |
The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film. | negative |
There isn't much to say about this film, it is horrible.<br /><br />The acting and dialog are way far away from even decent, the story of the hybrid werewolf's is not very well explained and the whole thing has plot holes here and there.<br /><br />CGI is something you wouldn't like to see. It so amateurish that it makes me vomit.<br /><br />The only good thing on the DVD was in the Extras. The gag reel. Everything else, just waste of time and money. I hope noone will buy this, this is not even worth renting.<br /><br />Just stay away of this. | negative |
Victor Sjöström's "Körkarlen" plunges the viewer into life's lower depths for much of its running time, with grim scenes of alcoholic degradation, family violence and suicidal despair, but the most memorable passages involve the mythic image of Death itself. Here Death is embodied as a ghostly horse-drawn carriage, driven by a wretched sinner who was the last person to die on the previous New Year's Eve. For one year the wretch must collect the souls of the newly departed, and after twelve months of this horrible servitude the driver's own soul is finally released when the last person to die on December 31st becomes the new driver.<br /><br />The scenes involving this carriage (the film was known as "The Phantom Carriage" or "The Phantom Chariot" in English-speaking countries) are eerie and mesmerizing, utilizing double-exposure cinematography that was quite sophisticated for its time and still effective when seen today. Most strikingly, the carriage travels to the floor of the ocean to collect the soul of a person who drowned. As fascinating as these scenes are, however, the bulk of the film is concerned with the downward spiral of David Holm, played by the director himself in an understated portrayal of a man who has given up on the possibility of living a decent life. In flashbacks we see Holm enjoying a pleasant day at the beach with his wife, children and brother, and he appears to be a perfectly ordinary guy. Abruptly, without segue or explanation, we then see Holm as an alcoholic wreck, in trouble with the law and alienated from his family. Ordinarily this leap from Before to After might feel like a story-telling deficiency, but in this case the filmmakers trust us to fill in the familiar, sordid details on our own. It's suggested that Holm has been led astray by his convivial friend Georges, the drinking companion who first relates the tale of the Phantom Carriage, but whatever the cause of his downfall Holm appears to be a lost cause, a mean-spirited drunk who takes perverse pleasure in inflicting pain on his family and in refusing to reform.<br /><br />While David Holm is our central figure the story's true catalyst is a young Salvation Army nurse who takes a sympathetic interest in his case and doggedly believes in him despite his hateful behavior. When the nurse herself is dying-- indirectly due to her ministrations on Holm's behalf --she demands to see him, and thus inadvertently sets in motion a chain of events that will result in his recovery.<br /><br />At times this film resembles Dickens' tale of Scrooge in its use of ghostly visitors who inspire a deeply flawed man to take stock of his life, suffer over his misbehavior, and reform. I was also reminded of Sjöström's 1917 drama "Terje Vigen," in which a man returns from jail to find his house empty and his family gone (a sequence echoed here). The director also reiterates a standard theme of Scandinavian folklore, found earlier in his "Berg-Ejvind och hans hustru" (a.k.a. "The Outlaw and His Wife," 1918) that no man can outrun his fate. This time, however, it could be argued that David Holm actually succeeds in evading his seemingly inevitable fate, for he's given an unexpected second chance to make amends.<br /><br />Viewers expecting a plunge into the supernatural will appreciate the sequences featuring the Phantom Carriage of the title, but may not be prepared for this film's painful examination of a troubled man's alcoholic downfall. But those with a taste for intense and powerful silent drama will appreciate "Körkarlen" in its entirety. It stands with the best serious cinema of its era and is certainly one of Sjöström's most accomplished works. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.