review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
I rated this a ten just because I find it so impressive what a single eighteen year old can do with a video camera. It's no epic but it's plenty engaging and I was never bored. If tens of millions of dollars can go into the countless bad films that are poured out en masse, then give this director the same amount of money and see what happens. I know I'll be lining up at the local cinema for her first major release. Damn good job, and well worth the money. What a script! It might be low budget but it beats the hell out of half the major pictures I've seen lately. Nanavati knows how to tell a story, both in writing and on screen. Serious kudos to her, can't wait to see more. | positive |
As with most of the reviewers, I saw this on Starz! OnDemand. After watching the preview with my girlfriend, she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. I, on the other hand, thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. I mean, the design of Dr. Meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. After watching it, I can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story), it's best to pass over this one.<br /><br />*Major Spoilers Ahead* After making their first video for their as-yet-unfinished CD, the lead singer, Cassidy, kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend Neil to notice her. 3 months later, the band is trying to decide if they're going to finish the album or not. To try and see what Cassidy would have wanted, they go to see an old psychic friend of hers, Dr. Meso, and try to contact her through him. In his card reading, Dr. Meso turns up four straight Death cards for the four remaining band members. Bad times are ahead. (I just wanted to make a point that later in the film, they do explain that the Death card really just represents change. Kudos to them on that at least.) Even without the approval of their deceased friend, they decide to go ahead and finish the album. But while in the bathroom, Cassidy's best-friend, Dora, catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. When another band-mate goes in to check on her, Dora is standing in the dark, requesting his sunglasses. That's when the killing begins.<br /><br />My main problem with the film from the very get-go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. Too many warping effects, unnecessary zooms, and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. An incoherent storyline doesn't help anything either. While the narrative hangs together for the first part, once Cassidy is resurrected, everything falls apart. We have jump-cuts between Cassidy and Dr. Meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building), which show they are connected in some way or another. However, within a few minutes of that revelation, we find that Cassidy really is an independent being from Meso. She then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind Jack Nicholson as The Joker. But not in a good way.<br /><br />From this point on, the whereabouts of Cassidy are shown, but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. One scene we see Cassidy standing at a desk, when a character enters in the next, she's nowhere to be found. As he moves behind the desk, we see her at the end of a hallway. Then in another room grabbing the keys (which Neil already has), then back again. Not to mention that from one moment to the next, Cassidy's mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. One moment, she wants to kill everyone (although she's only wounded 90% of the characters) - the next she's apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. Sound confusing? That's because it is. It's a jumbled mess that I'm sure the writer couldn't even figure out.<br /><br />As for the performances, most are particularly wooden. Some though are interesting, but overall this isn't a piece that would be known for it's acting. The story is the driving force behind this piece. | negative |
Kate Beckinsale is as good if not better than Gwyneth Paltrow as Emma in this movie, although I really liked Gwyneth Paltrow in the other Emma version. They're both good in different ways. Kate Beckinsale as Emma seems more interesting, almost, though. And I liked the woman who played Harriet Smith in this movie better, too...she was more believably sweet and sentimental. There are certain things I like better about the Gwyneth Paltrow version, though, like how the humorous side is more apparent. | positive |
I saw this performance on TV and taped it. My daughter played it over and over again. I loaned out at work and everyone just loved it. It is just brilliant physical comedy. Bill made an appearance here in California, (he was working and living in New York) and performed the Regard of Flight on stage. I was able to take my daughter and her girlfriend to see this brilliant performance.<br /><br />Bill was awarded a Federal endowment, and my daughter wrote him a letter of congratulations, and Bill was so kind to write her a note back and enclose a photograph.<br /><br />People ask me, and I can't decide if he is a comedian, and actor, or a clown. Actually he is all three. I really wish this was on DVD, my tape is lost. | positive |
Noel Coward is perfectly cast as a suave, vain, selfish well educated, upper class publisher. The literary crowd that congregates at his office is equally lacking in depth and seems concerned only with their status and success. They constantly meet at Noel Coward's publishing office in the hope of gaining favor for their next book and to make sure they are not left out on the latest gossip in the artistic realm.<br /><br />Cora is a young idealist and poet who believes her love can change Noel Coward and that they can establish a long lasting relationship. She ends her relationship with her fiancé to become Noel's lover. However Noel returns to his playboy ways after 6 months and ends the relationship. This breaks Cora's heart and she eventually returns to her fiancé who has since lost his job and self respect after losing Cora.<br /><br />The story picks up when Noel Coward leaves New York City by plane chasing after a new lover, a concert pianist who is just as shallow as he is. However a storm is encountered and the plane crashes into the sea killing Noel. God takes pity on him and grants him one month on Earth to find someone who will cry for him, otherwise he is condemned to wander the Earth, never to find rest, for all eternity.<br /><br />The climax takes place on a dim, rainy night and ends with a prayer and a miracle. A strange redemption occurs. The death experience teaches Noel the true values of life, although his former associate artists are incapable of understanding his message.<br /><br />The film has beautiful music and the scenes are classic film noir. Unfortunately it is not on DVD or VHS. For those who enjoy this type of movie it is a classic masterpiece. Noel Coward's dialog is sharp and witty and no one could play the part better. | positive |
Things to Come is an historic film. Along with Metropolis (1927), it stands as one of the first great science fiction spectacles. It is also one of the first doomsday movies. It is remarkable how the filmmakers predict the start of the Second World War within a year, and even, in a subtle way, the year it would end in the real world. But then the film departs from reality, depicting a world ravaged by war (only substitute poison gas for nuclear weapons which of course did not exist in 1936).<br /><br />The last half hour of the film is an incredible sight, making groundbreaking use of models and matte paintings -- later to become staples of the science fiction genre. It is sad that, after Things to Come, Sci-fi would become identified with cheaply made b-movies, a stereotype that wouldn't be broken until 2001:A Space Odyssey more than 30 years later. If they'd stuck with the quality of the effects in this film, things would have been very different in Hollywood. <br /><br />Raymond Massey and some of his co-stars play multiple roles in this film, to good effect. Massey plays a great "Doctor Who"-like role as a pilot from an advanced (for 1970) civilization who tries to win over the populace of a devastated country ruled by a simple-minded warlord (a very effective performance by Ralph Richardson). Ultimately, the storyline covers 100 years. But that's a big problem with this film -- there really isn't a cohesive storyline.<br /><br />Perhaps in such an episodic film -- somewhat reminiscent of Intolerance, actually -- it's hard to have a conventional plot, but I felt more could have been made of the material, and although the visuals in the final third of the picture are indeed stunning and worth the price of admission ... the plot is nonexistent and the movie itself suddenly ends just as it is getting interesting. Maybe the producers were thinking of another future sci-fi innovation: a sequel?<br /><br />Things to Come is a film every serious sci-fi buff should see at least once. Unlike Metropolis, however, it might not bear repeated viewings. | positive |
After 7 years of watching that dreadful nonsense called Star Trek Voyager I was feeling pretty numb. Next Gen and DS9 were bloody good stuff and Voyager ruined TV Trek. This opened with probably the best pilot to a Trek show. The crew were really good as were the choice of actors for the parts. Scott Bakula played a typical first time captain in deep space and his unpolished way of doing things was a refreshing change to the already know everything captains from before. The rest of the crew were really likable in their roles and I think they got off to a good first season. When the show was prematurely canceled I was really disappointed. In A Mirror Darkly showed us what the cast were capable of. Pity a film or TV movie was never considered. So much back story and founding of the federation left to tell, including the onset of hostilities with the Klingons.......... | positive |
Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...<br /><br />This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.<br /><br />Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.<br /><br />Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time. | negative |
The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree. | negative |
There I was sitting alone in my flat on a Saturday night with the choice of watching CITIZEN X or The Eurovision Song Contest , and for the benefit of Americans reading this I'll explain that TESC is an annual event where musicians from countries all over Europe and Asia Minor have a song contest. At the end of the contest countries vote to see what the best song was . It's a contest that is even less exciting than it sounds and it may not come as a shock when I say that singing and songwriting isn't of the calibre of Lennon and McCartney . And I should correct something in the first sentence of this review because the word " Choice " is misleading because being a music lover I wasn't going to watch TESC under any circumstance.<br /><br />So I sat down as the credits rolled for CITIZEN X expecting a run of mill serial killer whodunnit , but I'd be misleading everyone calling it that. It's obvious within the first 10 minutes of CITIZEN X whodunnit . What the film does is point out the failures of communism : " A serial killer comrade ! This is the Soviet Union , serial killers can only exist in decadent imperialist capitalist systems " This farcical attitude goes far beyond denial , there's a scene where an undercover cop sits in a freezing train station keeping an eye out for potential suspects whilst wearing his police jacket because it's the only warm coat he's got ! And of course all suspects who are members of the communist party are released without interrogation something which will affect the final death toll . All this is very well done as we are shown that it's the communist party system that's on trial but about two thirds of the way through CITIZEN X we find ourselves in 1990 as communism is on its last legs and reforms to the police investigation have taken place . It's at this point that the film becomes rather uninteresting due to a lack of political subtext and the film descends into an average manhunt film . But don't let that put you off , CITIZEN X is an intelligent thriller well played by the cast especially Donald Sutherland as a paternal police chief<br /><br />Strangely enough a few years ago I read something written by the famous criminologist Colin Wilson in which he said something along the lines that serial killers let themselves get caught so that they will be the center of attention in the media spotlight , and I found myself almost sympathising the party chiefs denying there could be a serial killer in the Soviet Union. After all media is controlled by the party and anyone who's old enough to have listened to Radio Moscow or read English translations of Pravda will know that the USSR only reported news stories like potato harvests , coal production and thank you letters from Afghanistan , Cuba etc for Soviet assistance . The concept of becoming a serial killer in a communist system is illogical . But I guess if a tree falls in a remote Siberian forest it will still make a sound even though no one is around to hear it . | positive |
I know many people have a special fondness for the Alistair Sim version of Dickens' story, but for me, this 1984 version is the one to beat. My wife and I own a copy of this film on VHS, and we watch it together every Christmas Eve. I often remark that we could watch it on Halloween too, because it's a very creepy ghost story.<br /><br />Scott--typecast as Scrooge--is shudderingly mean and nasty, making his transformation all the more miraculous and moving. I think it's up there with his performance in Patton. The spirits are all effective, each one creepier than the last. Watching the dark, floating, skeletal form of the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come sends shivers down my spine every year. And what a supporting cast! David Warner, in particular, is in top form as Bob Cratchit, as is Susannah York as his wife. <br /><br />I seem to recall that this version sticks closer to the original story than most others--but I may be mistaken, as it's been several years since I read it. Regardless, this is a terrific Christmas classic. | positive |
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different. | negative |
This movie had terrible acting, terrible plot, and terrible choice of actors. (Leslie Nielsen...COME ON!!!) The one part I considered slightly funny was the battling FBI/CIA agents, but because the audience was mainly kids they didn't understand that theme. | negative |
Even for the cocaine laced 1980's this is a pathetic. I don't understand why someone would want to waste celluloid, time, effort, money, and audience brain cells to make such drivel. If your going to make a comedy, make it funny. If you want to film trash like this keep it to yourself. If you're going to release it as a joke like this: DON'T!!! I mean, it was a joke right? Someone please tell me this was a joke. please. | negative |
This film exhibits artful cinematic techniques wherein instead of landscape capturing the attention of the camera it is small details in how someone appears, how the woman may be wearing a cocktail hat and wrapped in a sheet. How the husband may be wearing a hat and socks and shoes and his underwear and both seem so completely at ease and comfortable. How provocative the woman is posed is another feature of the tableau that the director chooses to let us know she is a free spirit sexually and aims to get the pleasure she seeks without flirting directly or with any particular sensitivity to what the man may be feeling. The relationship between the wife and husband is unique. It is an open one wherein she holds nothing back, feels no particular shame for how she has behaved and wants to share these facts with him because her primary focus always is on the fact of their marriage. Nothing and no one can come between the two of them. Only the chances of fate can intervene---his imprisonment during the war and what follows after his return at long last. A very intriguing film which is totally absorbing. | positive |
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script. | negative |
Ocean's Twelve: just plain stupid, bad and nothing compared to the other two.<br /><br />An art robbery. 10 known actors, at least. A weak script and very slow developing idea. That's why I characterize a movie I only saw at least 20 minutes of it. Don't get me wrong, you may like it. But I only like the Ocean's films because of the Heist theme. If Ocean's 12 it's not about Heist then what's the point to see it? Glad Soderberg saw his main error and redeemed himself by making a film far superior to the first one. Kudos for that.<br /><br />Steven Soderberg isn't really a good director. Apart from his hit "Sex lies and videotapes"... nothing else happened so much great to the career of this director. Shame on him. But his fault only. | negative |
I remember vacationing in Florida when this movie aired. I had set up my VCR to record it. The anticipation was killing me. I had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. We came back from Florida 4 days after the movie aired, and I immediately watched it. I tried as hard as I could to like it, but I didn't.<br /><br />I am a HUGE 3 stooges fan. And as such I know quite a bit about them. So it wasn't like I was expecting to learn anything from the movie, and I didn't. I was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. There were many things wrong with this film. The actors, the script, the reenactments, ALL could have been much better.<br /><br />Paul Ben-Victor is a tremendously talented actor. But let's face facts, Moe Howard was WAY out of his reach. He doesn't look like him, he doesn't sound like him, and thus, he can't act like him. Michael Chiklis is also very talented, but his portrayal of Curly didn't quite score with me, although when Curly becomes ill he did very well at that. John Kassir's portrayal of Shemp could've been rehearsed better. It was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. Worst of all was Joe Besser. They made him skinny, and more annoying than he really was. It was just plain laziness. I don't like the Joe shorts, because, as the movie illustrates he hardly EVER got hit. But he wasn't that annoying, and DEFINATELY wasn't that thin. The best performance belongs to Evan Handler. He had the most accurate stooge portrayal. The problem with Larry's character, his hair is WAY too frizzy and WAY too red. I know that's too technical, so I won't count that on my list of why I didn't like this movie.<br /><br />Back to Shemp, who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. He is written as a whining, quivering, chicken. True, he had many phobias, but he wasn't that bad. He didn't leave the group initially because he was afraid of Ted Healy, although he didn't like him, Shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn't turn down. Instead of the truth, this movie chooses to make him wet the bed, on Larry no less, run into a closet, and shamefully bow out of the group. Another problem is that Shemp made nearly as many Columbia shorts as Curly did as a stooge, but only one, Fright Night, which was his first short, is shown. His career was almost completely ignored. Plus, lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. Shemp was born in early 1895, and died in late 1955. That would make him how old at death? Well, here's a hint, it's not 59 as the movie states.<br /><br />Now for the writing, which I think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. Some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and/or introduced much better than they were. The one line that really got me was at the very end of the film, when Moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done.<br /><br />"That's how we do it, make contact with the brow bone, not the eyes, looks real on film though." this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. It's meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say OH! In amazement and I'm sure it did with some people, but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. A better place you ask? How about when they show up at Columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. I know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke, but Moe for instance could have said, "What about this?" and eyepokes Curly or Larry. Jules White then says "Are you okay?" or "How'd you do that?" There were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. Another one involves the origin of the name Shemp, although that one isn't as bad, and so I will let that one slide.<br /><br />What does this film do well? It illustrates how the stooges were screwed by Columbia, which they were. I'm not sure if Moe was an errand boy, but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. I know this film was a dramatization. I know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. However some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. For instance Curly's stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. I know, I know, dramatization, but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. Curly's stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. Here's what really happened. Curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot, they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. Moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped, half paralyzed, unable to speak, and tears streaming down his face. Moe then said "Babe?" and tried to help him out of his chair. Poor Curly drops to his knees. Then the ambulance was called.<br /><br />All in all, this movie wasn't terrible, but it certainly wasn't good, or even OK. This film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. There is a very, VERY long list of inaccuracies in this film. If you don't believe me, check out a fella named Stooge's list at the threestooges.com news forum. It is about a page and a half long. Some things in the movie I can let slide. But others were unforgivable. The Three Stooges were geniuses, and a lot of today's comedy is based off of what they did. Don't believe me? Check out the Simpsons, and more so Ren & Stimpy. But this film fails to capture their genius. It more so inaccurately captures their hardships, which is important, but if the title of the film is gonna be the Three Stooges, it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything. | negative |
Horrible Script, which was apparently directed by...no one? The Marines can't fend off the monster with machine guns, however it backs off when a 15 year old girl karate kicks it in the face a few times. It's supposed to be a luxury liner, but the Fancy Dining Room looks like a Cafeteria in a hospital. It appears that they rented a High School for the summer, and pulled out chairs and stuff to decorate the set with. In the end shot, they are pulled from the water and into a boat and less than 3 seconds later they are apparently about two miles from the ship as it sinks.How do movies like this get made? I guess anyone can be in a film these days. Aaron James, NYC | negative |
I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.<br /><br />It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.<br /><br />Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.<br /><br />Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.<br /><br />This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).<br /><br />This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.<br /><br /> | negative |
I became a fan of the TV series `Homicide: Life on the Street' late in the show's run, but became a fan very quickly. It was a cop show unlike any other: visually different in its use of hand-held cameras, taking the viewer everywhere, with its multiethnic and mutiracial cast and their varying and fascinating personalities, and that it covered all of the good and bad of a police department, including the corruption and personality clashes that bubble up to the surface. <br /><br />Homicide: The Movie, the reunion follow-up to the series, is as good as a made-for-television film can be. After Lt. Giardello (Yaphet Kotto), now a candidate for mayor of Baltimore, is shot, the series' cast members are back to help find the killer. In addition, the cast members who left the force and those who died, also manage to have their place in the film. The intensity and fire that marked the series return, and the script bristles with the same fire that marked the series. All in all, a terrific TV movie.<br /><br />Vote: 9 | positive |
What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film. | negative |
This film is the greatest ninja film ever made in my opinion and if you haven't seen it then its worth watching. I would rate this film a 10/10 if you want to see more then check out http://uk.geocities.com/ninja3thedomination The opening sequence where the evil ninja is killing everyone in his way is excellent his character is the best. He then has to possesses ayoung woman who finds him dying. She then has to take revenge on the cops that killed him which means there's more killing and action. But only a ninja can destroy a ninja so she and her boyfriend who is also one of her targets enlist the help of Yamad(Sho Kosugi) to release the evil ninjas spirit and destroy him. | positive |
I first saw this film when i was about 13. It blew me away then and in many respects it still does now. But i am less inclined to see it as an accurate historical piece now. There is precious little effort made to examine and interact with the racism - and thus fails to recognise that the most potent anti racism weapon is to understand it at its very core in those who commit it. What we get instead is a dichotomy - on the one side, beko and woods in 3D panoramic rainbow vision - on the other, two dimensional characters are portrayed as unapologetic unthinking evil.<br /><br />This all makes for a great film story, but it worries me that people see the portrayal as 'accurate'. | positive |
I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins. | negative |
I might not have been the biggest Blair Witch fan but nonetheless appreciated that effort, so I was looking forward to Altered, especially after reading the superlatives thrown around in various IMDb comments. "Unique", "intelligent", "A future cult classic" and so on... you gotta wonder where people come up with that stuff to describe such a poor effort.<br /><br />Because alas, Altered is a poor, weak movie that fails to engage in any and every respect. The silliness is not funny. The horror and gore is not scary. And whatever "thinking" aspect some poor fellows saw in this movie were due to severe delusions because there's certainly nothing profound or smart about this mess.<br /><br />OK, so we know nothing stands out. Is it at least bearable? Is the experience worthwhile in any way? Unfortunately, no. For starters, get very poor acting. It's not a stretch to say most B-movies these days feature better acting. The plot? Boring and messy. Dialogs? Many amateurs actually do better.<br /><br />It's really the direction that puzzles. I did not expect major improvements over Blair Witch but at least small steps forward. Instead, our director seems to have worsen over time, completely oblivious to previous experiences.<br /><br />If there is a major flaw in Altered, it's the main set. A major part of the plot takes place in a single location, where the main characters are confined but Sánchez has failed to give the place any personality whatsoever. Considering that in Blair Witch, the forest plays a major part and is as much a character (an antagonist, if you will) as the three students, you would think the director would realize the same thing was needed here. But no... this place has no personality whatsoever thanks to sloppy direction and no attention to details.<br /><br />There's nothing salvageable here. Die hard fans of "Blair Witch" are better off following Daniel Myrick. Although his output is far from being golden, it shows better structure than Sánchez and some lessons from Blair Witch are applied (unfortunately, in weak stories but still). | negative |
America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic. <br /><br />This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa. <br /><br />Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality. <br /><br />The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband. <br /><br />In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again. <br /><br />Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals. | negative |
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie. | negative |
The brands in this film, like Suit Supply, take away from the story, cause it's supposed to be set in the eighties. It's not a very thrilling film. Also, the single from Intwine on the soundtrack is very bad, it has a chorus that is repeated numerous times', like "I'm a cruel man, I take it all away, I'm a cruel man I'm here to stay.." Jeeez couldn't those asswipes have come up with something better than that? I guess they wrote it in a couple of minutes..<br /><br />It's really annoying, just like the product placement in this filmproduct,that cashes in on the controversy and publicity around a criminal who should not be a celebrity like he is now made out to be, but should be forgotten like rats ought to be. | negative |
I turned this off within the first five minutes. It's very sick and disturbing, the moment I turned this off was when the beautiful white horse was let into the slaughterhouse and it's skull was punctured by a small tubed instrument. This creature was lying on the floor in a state of shock before it died. The narrator said the animal dies instantaneously, it didn't. I don't agree with graphic realism towards animals, insects or any living creature. I was very disappointed as I had just watched 'Eyes Without a face' which was a brilliant movie and this short film was attached, which spoilt my night - as I couldn't hurt a fly, never mind watching this savage documentary.<br /><br />reading other reviews on this page, I had noticed they used words such as aesthetic - this is not art or beauty. I can imagine that the documentary would be very articulate and profound but not aesthetic. | negative |
This film is a perfect example of the recent crop of horror films that simply are not fully realized. There are two routes to take in horror films: either you don't really explain what's going on (or who the killer is, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or give the characters a lot of back story and characterization so that everything is explained (Halloween could potentially be an example of this).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Creep fails in this area. I see absolutely no reason to give a small shred of the back story for Craig without fully capturing the essence of his character or his motivation. No character is fully realized, although the circular nature of Kate's character in the film is the most accomplished part of the story.<br /><br />In the end, this story is mostly unmotivated and none of the performances give it the necessary life to make it enthralling or interesting enough to overcome the lack of context and empty film-making that drag down the film.<br /><br />This film will go down as another example of a film (as most are) that could be so much better even though it would never be great. The only thing that was used properly in the film was the setting: the characters, story, direction, and overall writing would have benefited from a serious face lift.<br /><br />Creep does serve a purpose as a mindless, silly horror movie with no intellectual or emotional investment, but sadly, that's about it... | negative |
<br /><br />This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.<br /><br />If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme. | negative |
Just as "ITS A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD" is at the top of my list for all time greatest comedies ever made, this one is at the very bottom. (Of course, I could be wrong-not having seen "SAVING SILVERMAN") In other words, it's a lame, lame, lame, lame comedy.<br /><br />Rating: 1/2* out of ***** | negative |
I keep watching this movie over and over and over. I have to watch it at least once a week. I am from Africa and looking at that movie taught me some things that I didn't even know about Africa. Denzel's movies are all full of lessons for people of walks of life. I wish he was my own brother. I have also seen and love your Masala Mississipi. What a thrilling situation. When Denzel was trying to hook his brother up on the job, reminds me of my teen ages when my brother was always mad with me about getting myself busy all the time. My brother was always caring for my old father and he wants to see me the same way too. By the way where did Denzel get that African accent from in the Cry Freedom movie? I have first seen that movie in Africa and I didn't know then that Denzel was American till I moved down here. | positive |
During the 13 years of schooling I had from Kindergarten through high school, there was only one day that my class took a field trip. When I went to school, you went to school, from 8:30 until 3:30 and filed trips were not taken. But, for some reason I could not recall at this advanced age, we went to see a movie - National Velvet. I do not recall the movie, so, on the eve of my 57th year, I decided to revisit it.<br /><br />It is a movie about a time that no longer exists. A time when people trusted others and didn't lock their houses. A time when people were given the benefit of the doubt. It was a time when family was the most important thing. This film shows all of that and more. It shows love and trust and caring and the goodness of people.<br /><br />It would not be a bad thing for every family to view this film once in a while and discuss its message.<br /><br />It was a treat to see the young Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney at his best, the Academy Award-winning performance of Anne Revere, Angela Lansbury before Murder, She Wrote, and Donald Crisp, who performed for almost sixty years.<br /><br />What a movie! | positive |
It is so refreshing to see a movie like this with actual mood and personality instead of just a bunch of CGI cartoon gimmicks. This is a great horror-spoof that has genuine chills along side some really great sets and performances. Its laughs are subtle, but plentiful. Because there is very little if any CGI, there is no need to violently shake the camera around to hide the crappy effects. This makes the movie immensely watchable compared to the other camera-man-must-be-sh%#@ing-his-pants films of this genre that have come out in the last decade or so.<br /><br />Far more enjoyable than the big-budget re-made garbage being released by Hollywood today.<br /><br />See it. | positive |
I should say at the outset there are many, many things I love about 'Forbidden Planet' and yes, I certainly consider it a 'classic' science-fiction film for many reasons. But the adulation it has received over the years goes a bit over the top in my opinion. No less an authority than Leonard Maltin says 'Forbidden Planet' "...is one of the most ambitious and intelligent movies of its genre." Ambitious? Without a doubt. Intelligent? Depends on what part of the film you're talking about. It certainly was the most prestigious and highly-budgeted science-fiction flick to that point. At a cost of nearly $2 million (this was 1956, remember), MGM pulled out all the stops to produce a dazzling, eye-popping outer space adventure unlike anything seen on the big screen before, even employing artists from the Disney studio for some of the more elaborate special effects. 'Charming' is not usually a word used to describe special effects in sci-fi movies, yet that is the one that seems most appropriate here. Even the dreaded 'Monster from the Id' is only a well-rendered cartoon figure by the Disney people, unlikely to frighten anyone over the age of 8. When I see the various sets and take note of the art design, models, costumes, etc., I am reminded of nothing so much as 'The Wizard of Oz,' with its gorgeously saturated colors and elaborate if not always convincing effects. So much work has gone into these films that one is inclined to smile in admiration at the effort regardless. 'Forbidden Planet' is wonderful to look at. The scenes take place on obvious stage sets that are fabulously decorated, matte paintings of planets and space in the background, and intricately designed miniature sand dunes and so forth to give the illusion of depth. It's a bit like watching the most elaborately-produced stage play you'd ever see. The most believable and convincing scenes are probably the ones inside the massive Krell complex, where shots showing the vast depth and width of this inner space are well-done and credible. But then we get to the actors, darn it. The performances are almost uniformly awful, though in fairness one has to say the dialogue hardly ever transcends the level of adolescent locker-room humor, except for some passages of barely adequate scientific technobabble. Even the great actor Walter Pidgeon is reduced to giving such a hammy performance, it's lugubrious at times. A very young Leslie Nielsen stars as the spaceship commander J.J. Adams, and doesn't convey an ounce of believability or conviction in the entire film. He seems to instinctively know, thirty years ahead of time, that his true forte' lay in comedy, as there are times he seems barely able to keep a straight face reciting his lines. Every forced reaction, whether it is anger or passion or solemn meditation, looks right out of a high school play. Anne Francis, also very young, fares a little better as the supposedly innocent Alta, whom we are to believe has never seen a human male other than her father until the crew of the spaceship shows up. (Alta Morbius, now there's a name for you.) Unfortunately, even at this early age, Anne Francis seems about as virginal and naive as Elizabeth Taylor in 'Butterfield 8.' There is a good story here, buried somewhere beneath the crew-mates' leering comments about Alta and yet another juvenile subplot concerning Earl Holliman's 'Cookie,' ship's cook. (Holliman turns in a horrendous performance too. I'm guessing all these actors went straight from this movie to acting school.) Based on Shakespeare's 'The Tempest,' the story of a dead race, the Krell, and the fantastic world of machines they left behind is what most people tend to remember about 'Forbidden Planet,' and for good reason. For a few minutes here and there, you can forget about the rest of the movie and be dazzled by the Disney artists' conception of the Krell underground complex. Is it enough to make up for the rest of the film's shortcomings? You'll have to decide that on your own. Oh, and of course there's Robby the Robot, every 1950's ten-year-old's idea of what a robot should look and talk like. He's funny. In places. So, 'Forbidden Planet' to me is a very, VERY mixed bag. It deserves credit for being the inspiration for a whole wave of sci-fi films and TV shows that followed, not least of which was 'Star Trek.' But I would suggest that anyone who thinks it's more than well-staged comic book sci-fi go back and watch it again. | positive |
I have to say, I loved Vanishing Point. I've seen the original, and this is a pretty good remake of it. Even though it didn't follow the original storyline (that's why I gave it 8 out of 10), it was still pretty good and this is probably a better storyline.<br /><br />As for the car, well the DJ's comment at the end about the Challenger going 185 mph into the bulldozers is pretty improbable (And if you look, the speedometer needle was wobbling at 145-150), but even though I didn't see one on the engine in one of the beginning scenes where they show the engine, the original storyline had a supercharged Hemi, so it's possible. For those of you who say aerodynamics wouldn't allow it, the normally aspirated Chrysler 300C of today can go 168 mph, and if you look at that thing, going on a highway with it it's like pushing a brick wall through the wind at 70 mph. Plus, in a wind tunnel test if you put an air dam on the Challenger it would probably be more aerodynamic. | positive |
As B movies go, it was well above average (I warn the reader now that I may reveal certain key elements of the plot or other parts of the movie, although I am trying to minimise any such tendency). As sequels usually go, it was utterly fantastic(despite a "cookie cutter" approach to trying to copy certain elements from the original movie verbatum. Despite this sometimes tedious tendency, it seemed to work in this particular film, so long as the viewer could divorce his attention from comparisons to the original "Scanners").<br /><br />The movie was similar in ways to the "Superman" series, in terms of the main character's description of his early childhood and relationship with his parents (who seemed modelled along the same lines as the Kents in the "Superman" stories) and the theme of a morally pure hero possessed of extraordinary powers from an early age, etc. The depiction of profound feelings of alienation of prodigious or otherwise non-conforming children, adolescents and/or adults was a theme which reminded me of films such as "Real Genius", and (to a more superficial degree) "Doctor Mordrid" and struck a particularly strong chord.<br /><br />The film had a positive message, and was fun to watch. I found some of the insights and accuracy (in terms of depiction of certain aspects of paranormal experiences) fascinating, and even profoundly touching at times. These moments occasionally appeared from among all of the great formula-driven schlock and gratuitous sex(uality, in this case, as the sexual elements were tastefully done) and violence that makes B movies (or Shakespearian plays, for that matter!) so much fun to watch!<br /><br />This is a must watch for all comic book, Sci-fi, "remote viewing" enthusiasts, and horror fans! With the right exposure in the right circles, the film could develop quite a cult following, along with the original "Scanners". | positive |
And I love it!!! Wonder Showzen will pick up a cult audience and once it's canceled, the DVD sales will go though the roof. This is a very funny show in it's own ways. It's a parody of children's shows, namely Sesame Street. Our puppet characters consist of Chauncy, a yellow furry monster with a hat, whose our host. Clarence is a blue lizard like thing that does his own segments where he goes out on the streets. Him is a weird dog like thing that refers to himself in the third person. Wordsworth is the smart one whose brain always shows. Then there's the newscaster and the pink puppet. It's a very funny show, not really as nasty as you'd expect, but more the situations. They take 7 year olds out on the street, tell them what to say, and have them make mean jokes that they don't understand. My favorite segments are Clarence's videos, especially when somebody doesn't want to be filmed. I prefer TV Funhouse, which was a similar show, but this is still a very funny show that I hope lasts for years to come.<br /><br />My rating: *** 1/4 out of ****. 30 mins. TV MA. | positive |
The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise. | negative |
The premise of this movie, of a comedian talk show host running for president as an independent just to shake things up, is funny, entertaining, brilliant and even a bit inspiring. (thought about the west wing debate when Tom Dobbs leaves his podium, thought about Steven Colbert announcing his candidacy, good times) The first 15 - 20 minutes of this movie are therefore very very entertaining, the debate especially. When he eventually get's elected, it's a pity that is because of a computer glitch, you'd want him to win fair (although that is unrealistic).<br /><br />But after that this movie goes completely downhill. I thought we'd get a great movie like 'Dave' (1993) in which we see how it would out if a comedian actually ran the country. Instead, the movie turns from comedy into a thriller, a romantic comedy and a drama and does none good. The computer glitch becomes the main storyline, which really sucks. Boy is this disappointing. I give it 3 stars just for the premise and because I actually managed to watch this movie from start to end without stopping it, which is usually a good thing with me. | negative |
PERHAPS in an attempt to find another "Hot Property" for adaptation, the Brothers Fleischer thought back to their highly successful foray into the world of the Newspaper Comic Strip with their production of 1933's POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer Studios/Paramount). Although it was a part of the BETTY BOOP Series, Miss B. only made a brief appearance in the short; leaving the rest as a pilot episode for the possible emergence of a full blown series.<br /><br />AS is now common knowledge, the gruff, squinty eyed, brawlin' seaman became perhaps the most successful cartoon series ever; outlasting and literally outliving the Fleischers and their Studio, lasting to this day.<br /><br />RETURNING to King Features for another try at luck was no doubt the reason for trying out the very popular HENRY Comic Strip character in a BETTY BOOP outing; objective being the seeking of another series. The reasoning then surely seemed sound. HENRY was a most popular feature in the Hearst Papers' line-up; appearing as both a Daily and on Sunday's Color Comics Supplement, PUCK, THE COMICS WEEKLY. You know, "What Fools These Mortals Be!" Remember that one, Schultz? IN viewing the chubby, little, bald boy Comic Strip 'Hero' and his on screen antics, both solo and in tandem with Miss Betty; we were pleasantly surprised in seeing just how well the character was handled. The story and Director Dave Fleischer both afforded a plethora of comic strip-like situations and sight gags that seemed most appropriate for the character of little Henry. These mostly silent vignettes were very important to the animated film in remaining faithful to the printed page; as the HENRY Feature was mostly done in a sort of 4 color 'mime'.<br /><br />IN the cartoon, titled BETTY BOOP WITH HENRY: THE FUNNIEST LIVING American (Fleischer Studios/Paramount Pictures Corporation, 1935), we see what is; basically being a one situational exercise; being punctuated with the usual array of Dave Fleischer's rapid fire, machine gun-like gags. In short, Henry spots a puppy in the window of Betty Boop's Pet Shop. It is a sort of love at first sight as Henry attempts to purchase the little pup dog with the only money he had, to coins in his pocket. He is in formed by Miss Boop that it would be $2.00 in depression era money to make the purchase. Tears appear as the little guy leaves dejectedly.<br /><br />BUT a reprieve is soon on the horizon as Betty asks the boy to mind the store, while she leaves on urgent business. In return for his services, Miss Betty promises him the little dog in return. Of course, they have a deal and Betty leaves.<br /><br />GETTING to the work of cleaning cages and feeding the livestock affords the opportunity for the Fleischer Crew to fire up a whole new string of gags; this time featuring bird seed, Henry's bald pate and push brooms. (But not all at once of course, Schultz!) Henry's enthusiasm for mass feeding of the store's avian population by first literally seeding his head soon leads to a mass defection of the birds; out of the store to the open street in a mass jail break.<br /><br />BETTY returns to this sight and expresses her disappointment and anger with Henry's temporary custodial care. All bets were off, no doggie for Henry. He begins to leave; dejectedly; but soon convinces the proprietress to give him another shot at fixing things up. His head covered with bird seed, he manages to corral all of the little feathered creatures; returning them to their pet store coop. Happily, the little fella leaves; but this time he has his own affectionate, little, face licking puppy.<br /><br />UNDOUBETLY this was a winning combination. We have the carefree, energy filled, free wheeling of the boy, the kindness of Betty and the emotions of the situation and doubtful outcome of the 'boy and his dog' situation. Max and Dave Fleischer had given us a sort of almost minor mini-masterpiece of a surreal comedy short.<br /><br />WE were quite surprised that no HENRY Series followed. Judging by the fairly faithful treatment of the character, it certainly could have been sustained for some time. At any rate, this teaming was in many ways the best of the Betty Boop try out pictures. Although the first, POPEYE THE SAILOR (Fleischer/Paramount, 1933), was the most successful (and barely had any Betty Boop in it, save for a cameo as a carnival hula dancer); the HENRY Short was much better than the two following King Features "tryouts", BETTY BOOP AND THE LITTLE KING and BETTY BOOP AND LITTLE JIMMY, both 1936.<br /><br />POODLE SCHNITZ!! | positive |
A bunch of popular high school students play a cruel joke on nerdy Marty (a sympathetic performance by Simon Scuddamore) which leaves him hideously disfigured. Five years later the gang returns to the now crumbling and abandoned high school for a reunion. Of course, an angry and vindictive Marty shows up dressed in a jester's costume to exact a grisly revenge on his tormentors. Writers/directors Mark Ezra, Peter Litten and George Dugdale trot out all the endearingly corny clichés which make these 80's slice'n'dice body count flicks so much cheesy fun: fake jump scares, prowling Steadican shots, a fierce storm, an insanely groovy hard rock soundtrack, a nice smattering of gratuitous female nudity, a totally ridiculous "what the hell?" supernatural climax, tacky make-up f/x, and one of those lovably lame "it was all just a terrible dream" fake-out non-endings. Moreover, the elaborate murder set pieces deliver the gruesome goods: Gory highlights include a man's stomach exploding after he drinks poisoned beer, a lady taking an acid bath, a guy being crushed under a huge tractor, and two people getting electrocuted while in the middle of having wild passionate sex. Thirtyish British cult horror siren Caroline Munro is hilariously miscast as an American teenager in the first third of the flick. The cast all give solid performances, with especially stand-out work from Carmine Iannaccone as smartaleck ringleader Skip Pollack, Billy Hartman as faded macho meathead Frank, and Donna Yeager as foul-mouthed slut Stella. Co-producer Dick Randall has an amusing cameo as Munro's sleazy agent Manny. Harry Manfredini's moody, rattling music shamelessly recycles cues from his "Friday the 13th" scores. Alan Pudney's slick cinematography does the trick. Good, trashy fun. | positive |
Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from "Newwww Yoke Ceety".<br /><br />I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the "swamps" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the "swamps" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases "homuh-sex'l" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.<br /><br />This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with "Hollywood" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation. | negative |
German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist. | negative |
Although critically maligned, Johnny Dangerously is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. It's a movie that should be watched closely; some of the funny bits are done in passing and do not have the usual amount of attention drawn to them. For instance, keep an eye on Michael Keaton's use of the pricing gun at the pet store...and also on the documentary-style years that appear at the beginning of scenes. It's one of those rare movies where the humor hits you unexpectedly, even though you know it's a comedy. Amy Heckerling, the director, is really sharp here--If you enjoyed her better known films (Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Clueless, European Vacation, etc.,)you should give this one a look.<br /><br />Michael Keaton is extremely likable in the title role and the supporting cast (Griffin Dunne, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Piscopo, Peter Boyle) is excellent. Highly recommended. | positive |
This is probably the best horror film made since Ed Wood died. <br /><br />I can't spoil the ending, because I have absolutely no idea what happened. I'll try my best, though. There are some kind of lesbian vampires, but they keep swapping bodies, so any character might or might not be the character you're supposed to think it is, or it might be a lesbian vampire. <br /><br />Sound confusing? It's not as confusing as you might think, since none of the characters make any sense to begin with. There's no plot, no character development, and random people show up, speak a few lines, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. There are also zombies, who are *possibly* the enemies of the vampires, but there's also a dream-within-a-dream kind of sequence in a mental hospital, so maybe none of this actually happened, and it's all the main character's hallucination. <br /><br />The upside? Both of the lead girls take their shirts off briefly. The special effects are simply mind-boggling (I particularly liked the incredibly slow, awkward fight sequences). Everyone has a really silly Canadian accent, which adds to the general level of hilarity. <br /><br />Well worth the price of rental. We laughed until we cried. | negative |
This is not the kind of movie that really merits critical attention. It's not going to win any Oscars - it's really not a very good movie at all. Heck, it's not even really a movie - just a string of short disgusting, gross-out skits strung together in an effort to make entertainment. And as much as every critical bone in my body cries out to give this movie a failing score, gosh darn it, I'm going to give it a much better score. The kind of people who are going to enjoy this movie are not the kind of people who really care what critics have to say, so I'm not going to give some snobby critique of Jackass's quality of surreal existentialism that permeates and commentates on how our society....oh forget it.<br /><br />What's to say? There's no plot development, no character development - no real beginning - there's a semi-enjoyable end that's not nearly as funny as the skit that precedes it, and everything in between reeks of improper, bathroom humor that junior high kids laugh at. It's actually pretty funny.<br /><br />Leave at the door all your preconceptions of a good movie. Jackass: Number Two is just gross-out crap. That's really all it is. I do give the filmmakers this, though: they come up with some pretty imaginative stuff. You'll probably cringe several times throughout, want to throw up a couple times, wiggle and shift uncomfortably as the people on screen do death and vomit-defying stunts. Vomit, crap, urine, semen....virtually every bodily fluid can be seen in Jackass: Number Two. There's nudity, sexual humor abounds, and so on and so forth.<br /><br />It's entertaining. If you're the kind of person who finds this stuff enjoyable, then you will probably really like Jackass: Number Two. I laughed several times. Like I said, it's pretty imaginative stuff. I never once wanted to vomit - though I do have a pretty strong stomach. Just accept the movie's premise: a bunch of idiotic guys do weird crap for fun. Once you get past that, accepting it and going with it, you'll enjoy it. The only flaw in the movie is the sheer excess of all the weird and disgusting stuff. There are several very imaginative, very disturbing skits, but it drags in many places as they do ones that are less interesting. Towards the end things pick up, but in the middle of the movie the drag hurts the overall film's quality. In a half hour TV show this isn't a problem, but with film length celluloid, it's inevitable that boredom will ensue at some point. After awhile the gross crap just becomes desensitizing.<br /><br />On the whole, though, Number Two is an entertaining, imaginative, and above all, disgusting comedy that will leave you with a feeling of pain, nausea, and hilarity. Go see it if you must, but hey, if you know you don't like this kind of stuff, don't bother. You'll just be disappointed. | positive |
Truly a great film... I stumbled onto it at the video store and rented it because Aaron Eckhart (In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors) was in it as well as Paulina Porizcova... The lovely former SI swimsuit model does get nude in the film, but that is only one of the many reasons to rent it... It's very exciting, and the character development is fantastic... Eckhart is one of the most underrated actors working, and he steals this film... It is very dark and violent, but I enjoyed in immensely.... | positive |
Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.<br /><br />Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)two superior mob movies"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.<br /><br />Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.<br /><br />But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not onenot onecharacter in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okay
so what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film. | negative |
I have in the past loved Tim Burton. I loved Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands, and even Mars Attacks. But I hate this movie. The costume drama scenes in the beginning were the sort of poorly done, stodgy things that used to plague historical drama 25 years ago. Then there were all the head-cutting scenes, which just left me cold, and that's the sort of thing that ought to mean something, I would think. Yes, there were some nice bare trees and foggy evenings and the horseman jumping out of the tree was a nice special effect, but on the whole the movie was just boring and pointless. | negative |
"When I die, someone will bury me. And if they don't, what's the difference. Who gives a damn, huh?" Thus the philosophy of life (or lack there of) is summed up once and for all in this less than classic but nevertheless fun spinoff of Sergio Leone's "Dollars Trilogy."<br /><br />In the opening scene, three obviously evil gunmen ride into a western town and, with menacing glares, they intimidate all the pathetic normal people hiding in their homes. The observant watcher will notice that each of these three bears a striking resemblance to characters from Leone's For A Few Dollars More. There is one guy in Eastwood's poncho, one in Lee Van Cleef's black suit, and one seeming to act like Gian Marie Volonte's Indio. But this movie is not about these guys. No sooner do they ride into town when they are gunned down by someone even cooler than they, a mysterious bounty hunter known simply as the Stranger.<br /><br />No. this is an altogether different story.<br /><br />In an obvious copying of Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, three gunmen are again vying for a hidden treasure. Once again there is the bounty hunter and the Mexican bandit. The Stranger (George Hilton) is a supercool bounty hunter with a penchant for shooting people while dressed up like a priest. He is after the reward for the bandit Monetero (Gilbert Roland). But when Monetero's gang steals three hundred thousand in gold coins, the Stranger gets sidetracked from his normal line of work.<br /><br />To round off the trio there is Edd Byrne's corrupt bank executive, Clayton. He too wants the money for himself. But after the money is hidden away, the only man who knows where it is gets shot. Now the only clue to the hiding place is a medallion that shows a family crest. The game is too find the treasure before anyone else does. And any gun can play.<br /><br />With plenty of gunfights, fist fights, and double crosses, the action takes these three to the ultimate showdown ripoff, a three way draw for the hidden treasure ala The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly -- but with a twist.<br /><br />This movie is not as good as Leone's films, of course, but in the end who gives a damn, huh? This movie is fun -- 60s nihilism, spaghetti western style. There are no rules, no enduring loyalties, and no right or wrong -- just the treasure and whatever it takes to get it. And, though the movie is not classic, the ending surely is. Hey, maybe we all can get along after all, for a hundred thousand a piece.<br /><br />If you like spaghetti westerns, check this one out. It is fast, furious, and worth the look. | positive |
Many horror fans complain that horror has scarcely progressed in the last twenty years. I was inclined to agree with this until the influx of Asian horror films, a trend which has admittedly grown dull. However, it has produced some true classics, and A Tale Of Two Sisters, for me at least, stands out as an exceptional piece of cinema, and perhaps the best horror film in a very long time.<br /><br />Based vaguely on a Korean folktale, it tells the sad story of two mentally-troubled sisters residing with their father and stepmother. After experiencing a few problems on their first night back at home, they determine to stick together and deny their stepmother access to their close relationship. The tension rises and there is the inevitable snap. But what happens after this requires more than a pair of eyes, as the story takes several twists, and the scares become more emotional and quite real. By the end, you may need a few moments to absorb it all and piece it together in your own mind, but it is exactly this pairing of horror and mystery that pushes it beyond the definitions of these genres and makes it an instant classic. One to watch again and again, if only to work it all out. | positive |
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun! | negative |
I first saw this in the theater in 1969 when I was 9 and immediately fell in love with it. I'm sad that Sony has not seen fit to release this on DVD ("but one day, one day..."). I recently obtained a VHS copy of this on eBay and sat down to watch it 39 years later. I'm happy to report it still stands the test of time. The acting is spot-on, John Williams' orchestrations are lush and Leslie Bricusse's songs memorable ("When I Am Older," "You and I," "Fill the World With Love," "London Is London" are just a few of the standouts. And not enough can be said about Peter O' Toole, Petula Clarke, Michael Redgrave and Michael Bryant's acting. Terence Rattigan deserves an A+ for his update of the James Hilton story. There really is nothing not to like about this film. It's a good cheer-me-up selection. Glad they have released the original soundtrack as a three-CD set with lots of extras. Wish Sony would hurry up and do the same with the film. | positive |
Where to start? OK, don't compare this film to fight club for a start - ridiculous. If it was even a patch on fight club, the violence, blood, gore etc would be much more evident and realistic. Secondly, this film is no football factory - which is so much more real (and Danny Dyer makes Nicholas Nickelby look like an embarrassment). Fair enough, the storyline is quite decent and the fight scenes are well choreographed - with a decent ending i might add. But the film on the whole is poor, seriously poor. As people have been mentioning the accents should not spoil a film - i disagree - either a simple casting error, or a lack of effort in coaching the voices caused the film to be irritating all the way through - it was obvious from scene one some American/Geordie was playing the role. Don't get me wrong, good looking guy, who looks great with a skin head - but no not a football hooligan. I could go on forever about how ridiculous the football scene was - the 'fake steward' situation. Also, when the GSE are going to play United up north, they go on the train expecting only 3 of them - doesn't make any sense - this a real organisation of gangsters and thugs, which is portrayed in the film to be some mickey mouse cult of about 5 people. In terms of accuracy - did West Ham and Milwall not play for the last couple of years they have been in the Championship together? Hmm, ten years OK. And I'm sure 'Bother' would be able to just waltz into a Milwall firm pub. Basically, a very poor film which people will like if they have little knowledge of real football, and hooliganism. If you do actually love football and are intrigued by the underworld of hooliganism,, you will simply feel as though this film has insulted your intelligence. Ross George | negative |
I am a huge fan of David Lynch. This film, however, was a quite disappointing experience. Apart from the ambient background music which really sets the mood of the film it lacks almost all the qualities that I've come to associate with Lynch's work. The visuals are dull, to say the least, and the dialog is to vague and monotone to be of any interest.<br /><br />This feels more like a film students awkward try to do an arty dogma movie than the work of an experienced director. I've seen a lot of amateur movies with far superior camera-work, scenery, sound and script. This film lacks almost all artistic qualities. I feel as though I'm watching one of Davids home videos, produced during a weekend trip with some friends. | negative |
At least the under ten year old set will stay interested. Eleanor(Geena Davis)and Fred(Hugh Laurie)Little, a nice well-to-do couple set out to bring home from the orphanage a new little brother for their son George(Johnathan Lipnicki). They come home with quite the odd new sibling...a sharp dressed little mouse named Stuart(voiced by Michael J. Fox). Yes, mouse. Stuart is happy to have found the sense of belonging even if it is in a super sized world that contains his new family's pet cat Snowbell(voiced by Nathan Lane). Stuart embarks on the experience of family loyalty and overall friendship. George will finally accept his tiny new brother when the dapper dressed Stuart saves embarrassment at a model boat race.<br /><br />Also in the cast: Julia Sweeney, Harold Gould, Estelle Getty and Jeffery Jones. And the voices of: Chaz Palminteri, Bruno Kirby and Jennifer Tilly. | negative |
Like most other reviewers I have first seen this movie (on TV, never on the big screen), when I was a teenager. My Dad has always regarded this film highly and recommended it to me then, and I must say he was not only right, but this movie has stayed with me forever in the more than 2 decades since I saw it first time. I have seen it two or three more times since then (just a few days ago I gave it another watch) and it has not lost anything of its impact with time. It still a great and well worth to be seen movie! Manr regard Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY as one of the first and best later western, which had a realistic look at life in the old west, but the hardly known LAST HUNT is definitely the better movie and was even half a dozen years earlier. Actually it was probably 3 decades ahead of its time, or maybe it still is ...<br /><br />Although thinking hard and having certainly seen 100s of western (I like this genre) I can not remember any western as bleak and depressive as this one. Two men bound together, partly by hate, partly by not seeming to have other choices, surrounded by beautiful Ms. Padget, a crippled old man and a young Inian, leading the life of buffalo-killers until fate reaches out for one of them.<br /><br />Nobody who has ever seen this movie will be able to forget its ending and the last frames of this gem. When the camera moves on and away from Mr. Taylor a white buffalo skin comes into sight (on a tree)and echos from the past, when all the hatred began, are present again. Mr. Taylor has got his buffalo, but in the end the buffalo got him. <br /><br />Aside from the top performances of everybody involved, the intelligent script and the great dialogue, it should also be mentioned, that THE LAST HUNT is superbly photograped, I have seldomely seen a western that well shot (aside from the ones directed by Anthony Mann, which are also all superbly photographed), that all the locations are cleverly chosen and that even the soundtrack fits the picture very well.<br /><br />And director BROOKS is really a superb storyteller. Master craftsmanship!He has made quite a couple of really great movies and was successful in nearly every imaginable genre, but even in an as prolific career as this one, THE LAST HUNT still shines as one of his best, if not his best.<br /><br />Definitely would deserve a higher rating, compared to the 7-something RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY enjoys. | positive |
THE ATTIC starts off well. The somewhat dreary story is helped greatly by the two main actors and there's a semblance of a character study going on here but the film goes downhill fast when Carrie Snodgress' character buys a monkey. Not one of those cute little monkeys. She buys a real big chimpanzee!!!<br /><br />This sudden plot device basically kills the movie. It's just not conceivable for a woman like the one Snodgress plays, who has a hard time doing anything because of her domineering father, for her to, out of the blue, buy a chimpanzee. I mean, come on! Forget about it! | negative |
You can debate Prince's acting talent, or even his choice to parody his own life in this film. There is no debate about his musical talent either then or now. He seems like a shadowy has-been twenty years later, but the music remains relevant and fantastic. <br /><br />Having lived through the hype of this movie (graduated high school in'85) I can tell you that there was nothing bigger at the time. From Tipper Gore (Al's wife) trying to censor "Little Nikki" and every thing else under the sun via the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) to every "Air Band" at the time impersonating Prince, it was the absolute hottest thing out. For a few weeks at least, Prince was bigger than Madonna and Michael Jackson. <br /><br />We all waited for the film and were soooooo excited when it premiered. It didn't disappoint. EVERYONE was caught up. I was an MTV junkie at the time(they actually played music then....all the time)Prince played at least once or twice an hour. I must qualify this commentary by saying that, at that time, my favorites were Billy Idol, Oingo Boingo, The Fixx, Flock of Seagulls and others in the Punk/ New Wave genre' The music of Prince at the time transcended all types and styles. One of the reasons that some of it seems so cheesy and contrite now is that it was SOOOOOOOO big then. All the things that remind you of the 80's were iconic then. It was mainstream and it seems like a cliché' now. It got so popular that it became ridiculous. It's like the rappin' Granny commercial for Wendy's Hamburgers. <br /><br />It looks stupid now because EVERYONE was caught up in it (sadly, kind of like a bizarre purple macarena or something. Anyway, I hope this gave you all a little insight. | positive |
Beginning in 1942, the Sherlock Holmes character as portrayed by Basil Rathbone was set in the then 'modern' Britain. Many Holmes purists have praised the first two entries in the series (produced by FOX), but dismissed the 12 features that followed. I for one was never an avid reader, and thus I appreciate these films as they are without any initial bias. In fact, the setting of World War II for this entry places it as a period piece with the British propaganda evident throughout the film. The execution of the modern Holmes is handled with much more care than the previous entry (Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror)and fares much better for two reasons. First, Roy William Neil is on hand to direct (and would be for the rest of the series), and second although Holmes is pitted against the Nazis, the inclusion of Professor Moriarty makes this feel more like a battle of the intellect between two rivals. Lionel Atwill's performance has been criticized by many as being far inferior to that of George Zucco and Henry Daniel, but I feel as if its more the script than the character interpretation. Especially after seeing that Atwill was very capable of being much more diverse and enthusiastic in other horror roles. Basil Rathbone on the other hand is exceptional in this entry. He seems to be enjoying himself in the role of Holmes, but for that I blame the writing. For example: The introduction of Holmes in the Voice of Terror tries to hard to immediately establish how superbly intelligent Holmes is as soon as he is on screen, whereas this film shows Holmes' brilliant deductions, but also his shortcomings. Even in the climax Holmes initially has the upper hand, only to then have his blood slowly drained from his body. Now there are a few flaws in this film I thought I might point out. First the opening; Aren't the Germans fooled a little too easily? Maybe its just me, but the book seller just waltzes into the bar, says he's gonna get Tobel to not only answer his door after weeks of hiding, but allow him to come in and then go for a walk with him? What!? Second, Tobel certainly seems to put everyone around him in danger. Leaving the secret bomb parts with genius scientists. Leaving the note with his fiancé. Like what was he thinking? He was endangering them all. I thought he was this superb scientist trying to save England? And isn't the whole concept of 'use it on them before they use it on us' a little harsh. Obvious propaganda. Third, just how in God's name was Holmes supposed to fit in the bottom of that chest? Its really small! In fact the entire execution of Holmes finding Moriarty in the ex-con disguise really doesn't explain itself that well. I have seen this film well over fifty times and there are still parts like this that I find are executed in a very confusing fashion. Fourth, okay so Holmes finds out the first three scientists are dead then immediately assumes that Moriarty couldn't know the name of the fourth man because he wasn't dead yet. Well if Holmes didn't know the name then how could he assume that? The guy could very well have been face down in a lake. Lucky guess. Fifth, again with the confusion. When Holmes is supposedly dying on Moriarty's operating table, how can he recover so quickly? He sure was acting like he lost a few pints of blood, but not enough to stop him from saving the day. Now despite these flaws this is a highly entertaining film. The disguises are well done, the mystery of the dancing men is well done (especially the back-to-back scenes of Holmes and Moriarty each figuring out they were over analyzing them) and Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade is always a plus. And as a final note, the interrogation scene still kinda bothers me, I always thought that was one of the most well done sequences in the whole film. Overall, this film holds a special place with me as it was the one that solidified my Rathbone as Holmes obsession. A classic. 7/10. | positive |
Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both. <br /><br />Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES! <br /><br />Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage. <br /><br />What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping. | negative |
This film is one of my fondest childhood memories. Seeing the Muppets (at the height of their popularity) heading Hollywood, singing and dancing, with Miss Piggy googely-eying her beloved Kermit, Fozzie Bear doing his best as everyone's manager, and a generous cast of "extras" delivering a film that turned out to be "okey dokey".<br /><br />Kermit's melancholy ukulele number "Rainbow Connection" was nominated for an Oscar that year, but was beat out by Norma Rae's "It Goes Like It Goes". I'll pick Kermit's song any day! Get the kids and enjoy this timeless fantasy...someday they'll find it, the rainbow connections, the lovers, the dreamers and me! | positive |
This film was reeeeeeallyyyy bad! Was it meant to be a comedy as I couldn't help laughing the whole way through it? what a waste of two hours! Donald Sutherland was wooden not that he was alone, everyone else was just as bad...and how miscast was linda hamilton??? | negative |
After the suicide of his father, Charlie 'Kid' Davis (Ray `Boom Boom' Mancini) accepts the invitation and advice of his friend Tiny (Michael Chiklis) and travels to Las Vegas with him trying to become a boxer. On the road, they meet Gina (Jennifer Beals) hitchhiking, they give a lift to her and she becomes Charlie's girlfriend. Johnny Ticotin (Rod Steiger) is convinced by Tiny to be Charlie's couch, and the powerful agent Alex Dumas (Joe Mantegna), after watching him fighting, becomes his manager, promoting Charlie's career. This movie is so boring that it indeed does not deserve to spend much time writing about it. I do not like boxing, but sometimes I watch some worthwhile movie about this theme. But this one is horrible! Predictable, full of clichés, having an awful lead actor, a pure waste of time. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Corpo e Alma' (`Body and Soul') | negative |
A very high-standard Columbo story which was actually the first filmed episode of the long-running series but was originally transmitted second (after "Murder By The Book").<br /><br />Robert Culp makes his first of three appearances as the guest murderer in the series and plays the owner of a private detective agency, who blackmails the wife (Patricia Crowley) of a rich, highly influential businessman (played very sympathetically by Ray Milland) after he falsifies a report, in her favour, after it is discovered she was having an affair. The wife later rebels against the blackmail scheme but is killed in a fit of rage....<br /><br />A very satisfying episode in many respects, particularly as the plot is so strongly set-up and subsequently developed and also because of the rare Columbo ingredient that the crime is an unpremeditated killing. The whole thing is further enhanced when the widowed husband uses the murderer to assist Columbo in his investigations: a feature that facilitates numerous good quality scenes, particularly in the first sequence when the three central characters meet and Columbo's crucially deceptive qualities are wonderfully in evidence.<br /><br />Directed with flair by Bernard L. Kowalski and acted to an appropriately high level, this really set the tone for whole series (since "Murder By the Book" was let down by a poor ending). The script by Columbo creators Richard Levinson and William Link is precise, well-structured and well-thought-out and is underpinned by a steady, productive pace and meaningful sequences which really exhibit the unpredictability of the story. Ultimately, the finale fittingly epitomises that Columbo has always been one step ahead of the murderer.<br /><br />Overall, this is a very fine piece of detective work for Columbo, and strongly suggests that the production team had worked positively and constructively to render a polished Columbo story. | positive |
This is a simple episode ad so far after watching all of the Season 11 episodes (with the exception of the Imaginationland trilogy) this is the one that made laugh the most, definitely is my favourite so far of Season 11. So basically Cartman sees at a toy store a kid who has the Tourette's syndrome and a new idea comes to Cartman. You can imagine, now Cartman has Tourette's syndrome and is great since Kyle once he knows about this is like "he's faking". Cartman is certainly on fire, saying whatever he wants to the teachers, to the principal, to anybody. On the other hand we have Kyle who now is the intolerant one, basically for saying that Cartman was faking he was taken to meet children with Tourette's syndrome just to let him see that Tourette's syndrome is for real and is great since Kyle is like "well maybe someone is faking to have Tourette's for fun", in short Kyle could not explain that Cartman was faking. Probably my favourite scene of this episode is when Cartman is with Kyle's family but right after this scene another kid fins that Cartman is simply faking, the kid with Tourette's who was at the toy store, Cartman basically said to that kid this: "isn't having Tourette's awesome". But to be saying whatever he wants and be for everybody a brave boy is sort of just the beginning for Cartman, his master plan: going on National TV to say anything he wants ("people will call it brilliant TV, they'll probably give me an Emmy"- fantastic, in this episode the word "s***" is used 26 times and certainly that's not all. South Park won an Emmy like a month or so before this episode aired). But here there's a twist, Cartman basically removed all the bricks of the wall, he says now everything without thinking so we hear from Cartman that he wet his bed last night, now is not fun for Cartman and he is like "I can't control what I say" and certainly the person who was with him is like "well of course you can't control what you say, you have Tourette's" so Cartman is like "my Tourette's has gotten worse, before I just blurted out cool stuff about Jews being lame and stuff but now it's gotten really bad". There is also stuff about Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator, actually what happened with a pervert here happens with a lot more perverts, Kyle and Thomas were behind that to stop Cartman, Kyle ends being Cartman's saviour! Fantastic!<br /><br />TSA VOICES CONCERN Over "South Park" October 3rd Episode <br /><br />On Wednesday, October 3, the cable network Comedy Central will air an episode of the animated series "South Park" in which one of the young characters, Cartman, "gets" Tourette Syndrome. Given the nature of this program, we fully expect it to be offensive and insensitive to people with TS and garner numerous calls and emails from our members and the TS community.<br /><br />We have already taken some pre-emptive strikes, such as requesting that Comedy Central air our Public Service Announcement (featuring comedian Richard Lewis) during or after the show. In addition, once the episode airs and we are able to see exactly how TS is portrayed, we will be able to respond with specific issues and problems we have with the show to the writers.<br /><br />"We are actually surprised it took the creators so long to use TS as comedy fodder in this program, since no disability, illness or controversial topic is off limits to them," said Judit Ungar, President, TSA.<br /><br />"We always see portrayals of TS (good and bad) as an opportunity for awareness and education, and a show of this magnitude and popularity is certainly no exception and provides a way for TSA to spread factual information about the disorder," said Tracy Colletti- Flynn, Manager of Public Relations and Communications, TSA.<br /><br />We will be posting an official statement on this site with TSA's reaction to the program after the show airs.<br /><br />TSA RESPONDS to "South Park" Episode <br /><br />Unfortunately, as has been the case with far too many media portrayals of people with Tourette Syndrome (TS), the season opener of South Park ("Le Petit Tourette," 10-3-07) served to perpetuate even further the outright myth that most of those affected by TS have involuntary outbursts of foul language. In point of fact, fully 85-90% of people with TS never experience this tragically socially stigmatizing symptom (medically termed coprolalia). For viewers less familiar with the symptoms of this neurological disorder, the misleading take away message couldn't have been clearer unless you curse, you don't have TS. <br /><br />Despite our pre-airing trepidations, we do concede that the episode was surprisingly well- researched. The highly exaggerated emphasis on coprolalia notwithstanding, for the attentive viewer, there was a surprising amount of accurate information conveyed. The scripted input from parents, a neurologist, peers and the therapy session with the "TS children's support group" all served as a clever device for providing these facts to the public. "No doubt this South Park episode did generate increased national awareness about TS. Nevertheless, we are very concerned that school children with TS will be mocked and even bullied by insensitive peers who may have seen the program," said Judit Ungar, TSA President. "We realize that for over a decade the writers' satirical parodies have spared no group be they celebrities, the disabled or political figures. The fact that TS was the subject of a popular TV show attests to the fact that the public is so much more aware of the disorder. Obviously, this increased awareness we've worked too hard to accomplish can at times prove to be a double-edged sword." <br /><br />TSA contacted the program's executives prior to the airing, and we will be in touch with them again. Perhaps we'll succeed in turning this into an opportunity for positive TS awareness. | positive |
Because of all the negative reviews of this film I almost didn't watch it. However, I was pleasantly surprised that it was a fairly enjoyable horror movie. The acting wasn't great - apart from the wonderful Alice Krige - but some of the dialogue ("Just consider yourself lunch.") was quite amusing.<br /><br />On the whole an above average Stephen King effort - 7/10. | positive |
I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, "In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House..." After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean "spirit" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. "Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked! | negative |
It's not just that this is a bad movie; it's not only that four of the "best" Mexican movie makers are in this film; and it's not only that the script is terrible. It's just that...this movie sucks...big time. This people are wasting money in terrible scripts. It's supposed to make a criticism about Mexican society but we're fed up with this kind of films. Is bad language supposed to be funny? I don't get it. Mexican cinema is in big trouble if this kind of movies are going to continue playing (and being written and produced).<br /><br />Please, don't think this kind of movies are well received in Mexico: We hate them and they don't reflect us. | negative |
This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again. | positive |
You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least.<br /><br />Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh. <br /><br />Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day. | negative |
Last week on Friday, I went to see "Snakes on a Plane" with my friends. It was amazing compared to this horrible film (however, many of the scenes were ridiculously hilarious). Basically, some woman has a Mayan curse where she pukes up harmless harmless garter snakes that, instead of attacking, crawl inside of they're victims. The girl with the bag of coke is pretty hot. On the title screen it says "100 Passengers... 3,000 Venemous Vipers!" Scary, I know. There weren't even 100 passengers on the train. Only a couple of stoners and some other washed out losers. It's worth the five bucks to see the woman turn into a huge CG snake and devour the whole train then get sucked into a huge vortex though. It's just sad that someone would go to such lengths to make a crap film, only to make a few bucks because of the "Snakes on a Plane" craze. | negative |
I've read all the Dave Robicheaux novels and consider James Lee Burke to be my favorite contemporary fiction writer. I've also visited New Iberia and much of Acadiana to be able to better visualize the setting in most of these books. Needless to say, I greatly anticipated seeing "In the Electric Mist," especially since I thought Tommy Lee Jones would be terrific as Robicheaux.<br /><br />I was greatly disappointed. The story was very choppy; the interplay with the "ghosts of Confederate dead" was shallow and lost the impact and nobility it added to the book; and Tommy Lee Jones was doleful, expressionless and difficult to understand as DR. The best way to describe this forgettable film is to add my "ditto" to an earlier user comment that this movie was like one of those old made-for-TV movies. I expected Jill St. John or Cameron Mitchell to show up at any time.<br /><br />The location settings were accurate, and the photography at times captured the essence of the steamy bayous, smoky juke joints and eerie above-ground graveyards of South Louisiana. Too bad the story's disjointed presentation and Tommy Lee's sub-par performance interfered with the unique mood and spicy zest of the region.<br /><br />Next to final comment: In the novels, Dave Robicheaux's nickname is "Streak," because of the distinct streak of silver-gray hair on one side of his head. (Similar to how the Sopranos' Paulie Walnuts would appear if he were seen only in profile.) Tommy Lee had no such streak in this film, probably because the editors are James Lee Burke fans and they airbrushed the streak out after witnessing Mr. Jones's poor imitation of Dave Robicheaux.<br /><br />Final comment: While I generally find Alec Baldwin to be pompous and obnoxious in most roles, he was by far a better Robicheaux in "Heaven's Prisoners" than Tommy Lee was in "In the Electric Mist." Also, Heaven's Prisoners is much more interesting and exciting, with uniformly believable performances and more evocative atmosphere than this new movie.<br /><br />"In the Electric Mist" is okay to watch when one feels like "veging out" and there's nothing better on TV. But then, so are infomercials. | negative |
I saw this when I was twelve. It was the movie that made me understand what a good mystery really was. I had read the entire Happy Hollisters children's mystery series and they were about a family of child sleuths who always got their man. But we the readers were not in a position to solve the mystery along with them. This movie showed me that a good mystery is that which makes the viewer/reader, at the end, say, "OH!!!!! OF COURSE!!!!!!!" | positive |
The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.<br /><br />Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect. | negative |
This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies! | negative |
I have always been keen on watching Hong Kong movies, but all of them failed to meet my expectations...until now! BURNING PARADISE doesn't contain the flat humor most HK movies have, nor a second rate story line that has been dragged into the film. The story is not complex, but there are never scenes that are just there to fill some "intelligent" space (the only truely intelligent martial arts film I have seen is CROUCHING TIGER, but since Hollywood is involved it is no true HK movie for me). There are some incredible fight scenes in this movie, from the first one(which is one of the coolest I have ever seen, yet so short) to the last main scenes! But mind, there's also a lot of blood that flows (people cut in half, decapitated, etc). The production is pretty good and the special effects show that the fantasy of the writer can be fulfilled even though some shots must be pretty technical (notice: the sheet of paper that he throws and got pinned into a wall!). Yep, it's not Tsui Hark or John Woo that made my favorite Hong Kong film, it's Ringo Lam! And I'm sure as hell going to check out more from this director! Ace. | positive |
When I first heard about this series on AnimeTV,I have to say that out of all the shows that I have seen,this one tops it all off. I had to see this show,and that is what I really did. When I got the first volume of this show,it was the best. I really liked the animation,and all the fight scenes were awesome. I have to say that my favorite characters in the show were Saber,and Archer and of course I also like Illya. And of course,all the episodes on the volumes were interesting,and very cool. Another thing I have to say about the series is Michael McConnohie(famous for Transformers,and others) playing the voice of Berserker. He does have a cool character. And I even watched the entire series all over again before watching the final volume. So if you to see something good,then see this show,it's the best. | positive |
Joseph H. Lewis was one of the finest directors of film noir. This is surely his best.<br /><br />It doesn't have some of the standard features of what we now call film noir. Though American-made, it is set entirely in England. It lacks gangsters. It lacks a femme fatale. It does not lack crime.<br /><br />The title character answers an ad. She is overjoyed that she'll be making some money as a secretary. Instead, she wakes up days later as the pawn in a frightening plot. Only a very strong person could survive such a terrifyingly unsettling ordeal. And Nina Foch gives the sense of a strong woman as Julia.<br /><br />Part of the excitement comes from casting against type: Ms. Foch has an elegant manner. She is no screaming, cowering victim. She is actually a bit icy and patrician, albeit impecunious. This makes her character's plight all the more believable.<br /><br />Surely the single most fascinating element is the casting of Dame May Witty. She was (and is) probably most famous for the charming title character in "The Lady Vanishes." She has a sweet manner and a harmless, slightly dithering manner. But here she is far from a heroine.<br /><br />George Macready is excellent as her extremely troubled son. The whole cast, in fact, is superb.<br /><br />It seems that this famous and brilliant movie was made almost by accident. Undoubtedly the director knew exactly what he was doing. But he did it on a low budget. That is the thrill and charm of film noir, the real film noir: It is small, convincingly lowlife, and, in this case, unforgettable. | positive |
inspite of many movies dealing with great artists or a genius, chihaweseon pointed out the real dilemma in which an artist is capted...<br /><br />the decision whether to ease the demands of the popularity or to create something new and to define ones' own style.<br /><br />Chiahweson's desperate seek for inspiration and broadening his conscious led him to live the way he did, restless, outrageous, and yes very drunk! <br /><br />But still he defended and retained the most important ethical rules for an artist: respect to his Master, respect to the nature and the gradual seek for improvement and to perfection. | positive |
One of the more sensible comedies to hit the Hindi film screens. A remake of Priyadarshans 80s Malayalam hit Boeing Boeing, which in turn was a remake of the 60s Hollywoon hit of the same name, Garam Masala elevates the standard of comedies in Hindi Cinema.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar has once again proved his is one of the best super stars of Hindi cinema who can do comedy. He has combined well with the new hunk John Abraham. However John still remains in Akshays shadows and fails to rise to the occasion.<br /><br />The new gals are cute and do complete justice to their roles.<br /><br />A must watch comedy. Leave your brains away and laugh for 2 hrs!!!! After all laughter is the best medicine ! Ask Priyadarshan and Akshay Kumar !!!!! | positive |
This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.<br /><br />Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.<br /><br />Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.<br /><br />Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused. | negative |
I read Angels and Demons about 3 years ago, and I can honestly say to is one of the few books that I couldn't put down while reading.<br /><br />The movie however was pretty much what i expected, a lot of action, with somewhat of a mystery storyline. Tom Hanks plays, in my opinion, a much better role, of Professor Langdon than in The Da Vinci Code.<br /><br />You won't have to worry about this being as bad as The Da Vinci Code, this is everything that it wasn't. Much more interesting, more action, more suspense, and less of the unneeded controversy. If you haven't read the book, no worries you will still find it very interesting. And if you have read the book, well lets say you might be a little let down because I found many scenes missing that I was looking forward to.<br /><br />Overall, Pretty impressive film for any everyday movie goer. But, maybe not something too special for Dan Brown fans. | positive |
Ever since I first encountered the Divine Ms Merkerson as a sex therapist in Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It" I have been sold on the range of this exceedingly gifted yet terribly underrated actress. She received an Emmy for her portrayal here and to say it is well-deserved is a masterpiece of understatement.<br /><br />Here she simply shines as THE guiding force and hand in her community. This was especially poignant for me for I grew up in this very same time period. The production detail was phenomenal and evoked wooooooooooooooonderful memories of life and times during the 50s & 60s and of women like Ms Merkerson portrayed. She was thoroughly and ably accompanied by a hot, hot cast with performances one would enjoy over and over again. I first saw Macy Gray's name in the credits and went ho-hum. Her performance was so good, I didn't even recognize her until about a 3rd of the way through. I am especially proud of the obvious care and attention to detail to produce a feel and look of another beautiful era in African-American culture that is very tastefully done.<br /><br />Another very interesting aspect is that the project was less concerned with the racial fabric of the times but infinitely more attuned to the richness of the characters and the emotional diversity they provide to exemplify that in the final analysis it is about the choices we make and to what extent we accept responsibility for those choices.<br /><br />This is a worthy, elegant presentation of African-American life and is most assuredly destined to become a classic. You owe it to yourself to have this as part of your collection.<br /><br />I highly recommend. | positive |
This movie was disappointing. After 15 years, when it was brought back to mind from reviewing some info about Mariel Hemingway, all the regrets I felt about the movie came rolling back. While I remember Peter O'Toole, I was entirely oblivious to the fact that the female "lead" (okay, - she was little more than an object for discussion in the storyline) was Ms. Hemingway. I saw this movie back in the days when I wrote movie reviews, and warned people off it, as the stories just didn't work, and fifteen years of my subconscious trying to sort things out still hasn't made sense of the flow of the ideas.<br /><br />Part of this may have to do with the fact that it looked like, after the original movie (whatever it was about) was filmed, an editor came in and tried to piece together something out of it. I don't know if this had been a project of a previous studio boss, and so was sabotaged to discredit him or her by the successor, or this was a disaster from the original screenplay that attempts to salvage were unsuccessful. The theatrical version just didn't work. | negative |
If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.<br /><br />The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our "hero") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around
<br /><br />After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.<br /><br />Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing. | negative |
What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...<br /><br />My score: 10 | positive |
A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.<br /><br />To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.<br /><br />Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.<br /><br />On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck! | negative |
The Lion King 1 1/2 is a very cute story to go along with The Lion King. It basically follows the original story of The Lion King but with a couple of twists. In the movie,e vents are explained by a different characters point of view. This story is still an original plot.<br /><br />As far as sequels go, Disney isn't all that great at making worthwhile ones. This one, being the third part to The Lion King (Simba's Pride is the second.) actually has an original idea to it while still involving the fun of the first. Timon and Pumbaa travel along looking for the ideal place to live. After searching far and wide, they find the place of "Hakuna Matata". They then meet a small lion named Simba, and go through many things that parents today go through.<br /><br />I think this is a very good movie, and I'm happy to add it to my collection. | positive |
Having read most of the comments I feel like I have a word to say as well.<br /><br />What bothers me most is that most people here are think that this movie is either pro or con to the subject of death penalty and whether it worked with them. I remember having read an article back in 1995 when the film was published (yes, it has interested me so much ever since I heard that it would come out that I have not forgotten about the articles I read back then) in which Tim Robbins said that he did not want to make a movie to convince audiences of neither one nor the other.<br /><br />And I think that is completely right. I have to admit that I believe that in the way he made this film he did tend a little bit to the anti-death-penalty-side, but nevertheless people are still allowed to make their own choice. And this is a very rare thing in American films.<br /><br />I have shown this movie to many people since it came out and I have seen all kinds of reactions. Death-penalty-supporters became opponents or became even stronger in their belief. And many death-penalty-opponents (including me) grew stronger in their belief that death penalty should be abolished everywhere in the world. But I have even seen opponents turn into supporters. This and the fact that people here seem to fight about it shows to me that there are really many ways of looking at it. So whatever effect it has on you, the important thing is that it makes you THINK.<br /><br />This is one of the few movies that really gives you the choice, that does not shy away with a simple path by making the convicted either bad or innocent. This may be a tough thing for people who prefer being entertained or tought a lesson. There is no lesson here you need to find one yourself.<br /><br />Everyone praises the acting, directing and the music but since this has been said so many times the I will not repeat it all again.<br /><br />So if you have not seen this yet, do so - if you dare to be challenged! | positive |
Having reviewed 3 of the 4 Perry and Croft sitcoms, I thought I would get them all done now. Dads Army, is my all time favourite sitcom, It ain't half hot Mum is also a classic as is You Rang M'Lord. I don't regard Hi De Hi as a classic, but it is still funny.<br /><br />It's about a holiday camp, similar to Butlins, but instead of red coats, it's yellow coats. It is ran by Jeffery Fairbrother, a well meaning man, but has the personality of a sock. The staff include fun entertainment manager Ted, his sidekick Spike (he ended up being thrown in the swimming pool nearly every episode), yellow coat Gladys, careless maid Peggy who longed to be a yellow coat and the Punch and Judy man Mr Partridge who hates kids. Situations occurred mostly round the swimming pool, where someone would be thrown in every episode (with there clothes on of course).<br /><br />Not a classic, but still funny. Jeffery Fairbrother left half way through, so this, a bit like Only Fools and Horses, outstayed its welcome. Jimmy Perry was actually a red coat at Butlins.<br /><br />Best Episode: Peggy's Big Chance, series 2, episode 2. | positive |
"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10. | negative |
20 Years later and this movie still has echoes of its greatness floating around. Never has a movie surpassed Valley Girl's incredible soundtrack. The movie completely encapsulated the 80's to such a perfect degree that it could only be realized this many years later. Nicolas Cage at his best. A movie that just has so much character to it, that it makes you realize how sad hollywood has become (as far as quality goes). The special edition DVD is loaded with tons of extras and well worth it to purchase it as you'll have plenty of material to sift through. For sure. | positive |
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. <br /><br />I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups?
Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. <br /><br />I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. <br /><br />What a shame. | negative |
Take your video camera, turn out all the lights in your house and film people running around with flashlights for an hour and a half and you've got the basic idea of what this film looks like. It is very irritating to watch this kind of movie. To be fair, there are scenes of daylight at the very beginning and very end of the movie. I like scary movies and creature features but this one just didn't do a thing for me. So sorry. I really tried to like it. There didn't seem to be much of a plot other than we've got to find a way out of here. Didn't learn too much about any of the characters so it didn't matter if we lost one or two along the way. This isn't the worst movie in the world. "Open Water" holds that title for now. | negative |
on the contrary to the person listed above me i felt that this movie was really funny particularly in the scenes were there is a lot of mix up. i don't want to give the plot and the storyline away to the people that haven't watched it yet but i will say that Paresh Rawal does not have an extensive role such as past Priyadarshan movies, for example, Hera Pheri and Hungama. Paresh Rawal does an amazing part in the little role given to him, John Abraham does equally well, Akshay Kumar has proved that he is no less in this movie like he had from Waqt and almost all his movies after Andaaz. Even though all three heroins in this movie were at a debut they did a pretty good job of acting particularly Nargis who is very good looking and hot. i would say that if you liked Hungama or Hera Pheri this movie is a must watch. | positive |
There no doubt in one mined that this movie is stupid and unfunny joke, but tell the truth it is quite entertaining (if you re first time viewer and try not to analyzed anything) Over all the movie have a very good ideas but badly written.<br /><br />The story of the two losers, waking up to find out that they can't remember what happen to them the day before. Only to find out later that they are after by the angry twin girl friends, aliens, transsexual stripper, Aliens nerds and some gangs members. <br /><br />Isn't it like The Bourne Identity? Yeah yeah, I know - how can I compare the two movies, but what the hell? They both have no memories; peoples were after them and so on. <br /><br />Anyway the movie is stupid and is only for the viewer that like stupid movie. <br /><br />Reason To Watch: · Loads of young talented actors, · Very stupid (after all you know it a stupid movie, why not make it extreme)<br /><br />Reason Not To: · If you like to analyzed, then forget it, · Talented Young actors turn bad, · Good plod turn really bad<br /><br />Rating: 4/10 (Grade: E+)<br /><br />------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- --------- --------- ----<br /><br />'Dude Where's My Car' -wait, what do you expected from Ashton Kutcher's movie. I think almost every people got the same answer for this guy - 'A really stupid movie'. Apart from 'That 70s' Shows' this guy really has nothing to offer his fan. (He should thank the series for his reputation). 'Dude Where's My Car', is one of his trademark -'stupidity'. Somehow his film is even worst than Adam Sandler's movies, (can you imagine that). The movie is really non-sense, no story line, and no nothing. Mara Sokoloff, Jennifer Garner, Alison Sweeney and S.W.Scoot should not have wasted their talent on this garbage. They even came up with 'Seriously, Dude Where's My Car'. This shows how the movie companies are dying of making money rather than quality.<br /><br />Max: 4/10<br /><br />Recommendation: Borrow it from your friends or just forget about it | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.