review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
This movie should be called "plan 9 from joseph smith." i think its weirdness is underappreciated. the playwright seems to have read paul ehrlich's "the population bomb (1968)," and crafted a musical response made especially for mormons. the whole point of the play is that having as many children as you can is part of "heavenly father's" (god's) plan. and anything that stands in the way of having more babies is very bad. get it?<br /><br />This version was filmed in 1989, which is confusing. it's utah, so it looks and feels like 1983, the play was actually written in 1973, and of course, the theology is part 1840's, part battlestar galactica. some of the action takes place on earth and some in the "pre-existence, an aimless romper-room where annoying kids wait to get their bodies so they can come down try not to slam the door on the missionaries, losing their shot at celestial glory.<br /><br />it is as stagey as they come, but don't let the poor theatrics spoil your appreciation for this demented mormon universe where the 'cool kids' are all into population control, (presumably) counseling their parents not to have any more children!! having big families was, at the time the play was written, the cultural norm in the lds community, and more importantly, considered part of God's plan. the church has since done a 180, and have made family planning a choice of the parents, and large families are much less the cultural norm now. making the entire doctrinal premise of the movie for a modern-day mormon moot!<br /><br />ahhh but it's really only as good as the music. there are some catchy tunes here that just won't let this movie die the 1970's death it was pre-destined for. the brother and sister sing some love songs to each other that make you wonder if maybe something else was going on there --wink. and the tough, cool kids make new kids on the block look like metallica. so cheers to all that! gather the family around, make some jell-o shooters and enjoy the show!<br /><br /> | negative |
The essence of this film falls on judgments by police officers who, fortunately ethical and moral men, act on situations within situations in a city with a super-abundance of violence and killing. Good compound interacting story lines and above-average characterizations. | positive |
All I can say after watching the DVDs of the first season is that I can not believe NBC "green-lighted" this show. It's so different than what's currently in vogue save for Lost. Those who miss the X-Files just may have a worthy successor. Not as mysterious or intense as Lost, I find it to be overall more entertaining.<br /><br />This kind of extended story is hard to make. I mean it could degenerate into childish dribble if most of the elements do not cohere together. But cohere they do and I think the cast is excellent, the writing sharp, the location and props first rate, and the special effects very good for a television budget. Sure it pushes what is plausible, but as it does it never gets so silly as to insult your intelligence.<br /><br />Bottomline is that this is great Sci-Fi drama for the entire family. I doubt it will be a classic with a long run like X-Files, but in the meantime I recommend getting the DVD if you missed it like I did the first time around. This fall my must see shows has just increased by one more series!<br /><br />PS: I just heard it got axed from NBC...Here's hoping Sci-Fi picks it up. | positive |
Certainly one of the most hilarious films of all time. Excellent original music, clever, heady...it's hard to be articulate about something this good. There isn't one character that you don't instantly love to watch- Myronex "Putney, there's trouble in the black room!" "My name is Rufus." The lines, thrown away left and right, are classics themselves, recalling Slapshot, Caddyshack, Anchorman, Repoman, Dolemite, any comedy whose dialog is not of the formulaic set-up punchline variety. "Putney, Myronex called you tasteless!" "My organization is pro-integration..." "Where's Lopez? 'He's in my head'" They don't sound brilliant until you hear them in the context of the scene. ...This movie will eat your brain, it's too good. I've read reviews calling this film racist, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Every scene is gold, from the Etherial Cereal commercial to the Brothers In the Black Room meeting to that haunting trumpet in the closing scene. One word - genius. | positive |
I was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating. | negative |
Blade is a fantastic action/thriller that keeps you captured for the whole duration and Wesley Snipes delivers what I would say to be his best performance yet.<br /><br />This film has everything that you would ask for in an action/thriller, it has plenty of blood, guts and gore, a twisted, disturbed bad buy, moments of humour but most importantly a very good story line with plenty of twists.<br /><br />Their is constant action throughout the film with breathtaking stunts and effects, Wesley Snipes fighting movement is fantastic.<br /><br />This film is in my opinion a must see, Wesley Snipes cool, solid appearance makes this film and I can't wait for the sequel 'BLADE 2' being released next year.<br /><br />My IMDB Rating - 9 out of 10 | positive |
Another turgid action/adventure flick from the Quinn Martin Productions factory. Roy Thinnes plays undercover agent Diamond Head (Mr. Head, to you), working for his G-Man handler "Aunt Mary", looking for "Tree", who's on a mission to...well, just watch the movie. <br /><br />This one deserved and got the full MST3K sendup. As the boys and various reviewers have pointed out, the movie "Fargo" had more Hawaiian locations than this film. Apparently shot on a puny budget, this movie highlights Hawaii's broken-down dive shops, gas stations, and cheapo hotels. Zulu -- later to star as Kono in Hawaii-Five-O -- appears as Thinnes' lumpy, inept sidekick, while France Nguyen models the Jenny Craig diet gone horribly wrong. Others sharing the flickering screen include a drunken Richard Harris knockoff, a George Takai imitator, a not-so-smart hit-man with sprayed-on Sansabelt slacks, and the villain "Tree", sporting a veddy British accent. You can pretty much figure out the plot halfway through the opening credits, but relax--just enjoy the giddy mediocrity of this 70's movie-of-the-week.<br /><br />Whenever I think of this movie (and I think of this movie often), I catch myself humming the theme, written for flute and tuba...no one knows why. <br /><br />Trivia note--Diamond Head was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, one of three contract directors at Universal who would go on to make much bigger films, in his case Jaws 2. The others were John Badham (War Games), and a young fellow named Steven Spielberg... | negative |
A single mother(Diane Keaton) finds herself working several minimum-wage jobs. When she gets fired, she finds that she is unable to support her sons(Michael Seater and Colin Roberts), the latter of whom has asthma. Then she goes to her friend and starts selling drugs. Soon enough, she gets addicted to the drugs that she is selling. Her life comes crashing down, especially when her kids, namely her oldest son, find out the truth and threaten to leave her. Then, she struggles to redeem herself with the help of her kids but can she protect her family from the drug lords who she worked for? <br /><br />Wow! This lifetime movie has some of the best acting I have ever seen! Diane Keaton overacts a lot, and her character comes off as crazy but she was extremely convincing. She is much better suited to drama than to comedy. However, the best performance in the movie comes from Michael Seater, who plays her oldest son. He is perfect as the responsible son who is still young but trying to be the adult in the family. His acting was especially great in the scenes where he confronts his mom about the drugs. Colin Roberts, who plays the younger son, also does a great job.<br /><br />A movie well worth watching, especially because of the acting from Michael Seater and Diane Keaton! | positive |
Before I give Spike Lee's mess of a film SUMMER OF SAM a well-deserved thrashing, I would like to make one thing clear. I do not revile this film simply for its abundance of sleazy and unpleasant images. What makes this film so unwatchable is the fact that Lee seems to believe that SUMMER OF SAM should be taken seriously as a socially enlightening drama. The crime caper films of Quentin Tarantino, for example, are filled with violence, profanity, and other sleaze, but are nonetheless highly watchable because Tarantino does not attempt to pass these films off as socially redeeming works of art. He knows that such films are for entertainment value only. On the other hand, serious dramas such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and SCHINDLER'S LIST are often unpleasant to watch, but the unpleasantness serves to develop the film's plot and characters, with the end goal of getting the audience emotionally involved with the story and characters onscreen. SUMMER OF SAM, unfortunately, merely wallows in its own sensationalism and sleaze, while believing that it is serving as social commentary, much like other trash epics .<br /><br />SUMMER OF SAM does not serve as a serious drama because its characters are merely cardboard-cutout stereotypes. Its plot purports to show the emotional impact of the hysteria over the Son of Sam murders on the residents of the predominately Italian-American north Bronx neighborhood where the murders ocurred. However, instead of of presenting the locals as a diverse mix of personalities, Lee simply wheels out every negative Italian stereotype imaginable. The men are ignorant, lazy, oversexed goombahs. The women are split between weak, complacent "good girls" (Mira Sorvino's Dionna) and promiscuous "bad girls" (Jennifer Esposito's Ruby). Lee seems to vindictively wants to "payback" Hollywood for their years of negative African-American stereotyping by wheeling out stereotypes of his own, and few critics seem to care. If Martin Scorsese, for example, presented residents of an African-American neighborhood as a bunch of Amos 'n Andy and Aunt Jemima stereotypes, critics would rightfully condemn such blatant stereotyping. More importantly, one-dimensional, stereotypical characters undermine any film that attempts to be a serious social commentary.<br /><br />Without exception, the cast of SUMMER OF SAM is excellent. However, the acting, for the most part, is uninspired. The cast is either just going through the motions, or they have little to work with scriptwise. Additionally, there is notable miscasting. Comedian John Leguizamo is very talented, but his Vinny character seems to be a stale, comedic impersonation of John Travolta's Tony Manero from SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER. And Michael Badalucco, a perennial "nice guy" actor, is badly miscast as serial killer David Berkowitz, coming across as funny rather than frightening. The only performance worth paying attention to is Adrien Brody as the troubled, but sincere, neighborhood misfit Ritchie. The Brody performance and the typically stylish Lee cinematography are this film's only virtues.<br /><br />*1/2 out of **** | negative |
It's obvious that all of the good reviews posted for this movie so far are from insiders who were either involved with the film or who know somebody who knows somebody and have thus seen multiple cuts. Well, I don't know anyone involved, and I've seen the final cut, and it is pure garbage. The only thing it has going for it is ambition and multiple cameos from horror legends (none on screen for terribly long). It's as if the filmmakers made this movie on a weekend during a horror convention and got actors like Tony Todd, Tom Savini, David Hess and Michael Berryman to film scenes during their coffee breaks. This is an ultra-cheap, shot-on-video wannabe X-Files with terrible acting from a cast of non-actors with more mullets than is acceptable in the 21st century. There is little or no action; it's all overly explanatory dialogue that attempts to explain a pointlessly convoluted plot. Ther computer FX are a joke, but there aren't enough of them nor enough action to make this film enjoyable in a MST3K way. After about 8 straight scenes of nothing but talking, you'll find yourself reaching for the fast-forward button...and not letting go. Absolutely worthless. | negative |
This movie is horrible. Everything in it has been done before. There is nothing original. I cannot stand when writers don't come up with their own plots.<br /><br />A girl makes a wish on her 13th birthday and wakes up as an adult. Hmm, sounds a lot like a movie in the 80s called Big. What is even more annoying is Jennifer Garner's acting. She doesn't act like she is 13 she just acts like she is stupid.<br /><br />From then on, you can guess the whole plot. She gets a good job and it just so happens that a friend she had at 13 works with her. Wow, how awesome! But, no....her friend is bad and turns on her, trying to get her job. But, of course, she wins in the end when she comes up with a "great" idea.<br /><br />There's also a dancing scene in the movie that I've seen a thousand times before.<br /><br />I hate this movie. | negative |
In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.<br /><br />The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.<br /><br />The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.<br /><br />The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think. | negative |
How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year. | negative |
What a great gem this is. It's an unusual story that is fun to watch. Yes, it has singing, but it is very nicely crafted into the story and is very melodic to hear. It was so pleasant to watch; I enjoyed it from start to finish! <br /><br />The movie takes place in England during World War II. It is about an apprentice witch who is searching for a missing portion of a spell that she needs. She uses her rough "magic" to transport her and 3 children under her care to various destinations to find it. They are joined by her correspondence teacher, who is surprised to learn that the lessons from his school actually work! <br /><br />Although the special effects may seem a little dated at first, once you get used to them they become part of the charm of this movie. In fact, the movie won an Oscar for these effects! <br /><br />The movie is innocent and fun - and it's hard not to like the tuneful songs. The characters are wonderfully interesting to watch. I think anyone at any age could find something to like about this movie. | positive |
I went to see it in hopes of some good old fashioned Alice Entertainment.Once I realized I would not be getting that,I watched it for a pretty well made movie (in terms of filming,and yeah..that was it).But aside from it having a good film quality,considering I had been watching grainy movies all day long,there was nothing good about that movie.<br /><br />He killed 42.Why were Tweedle Dee and Dum played by Mudler and Scully?Serisouly,Who can answer that for me?Who can answer anything awful about this movie for me.<br /><br />I agree with whoever said it was just one big long inside joke for the staff.That's all it seemed to be.<br /><br />Poor Mr.Carroll.I'm so sorry somebody did that to his wonderful tales. | negative |
Some people may remember Ms. Russell from films such as "Black Widow", which had some appeal and critical acclaim. Boy, she must have really needed a rent check when she signed on to do this dog.<br /><br />Yes, there will be those who like the gratuitous violence and nudity. But one must sit back and wonder, in retrospect, what possessed anyone to spend money and time to make this in the first place. I just saw this movie on one of the "HBO's", and I can't believe they picked it up.<br /><br />In 1996 Ms. Russel didn't have the physical attractiveness she did earlier in her career. But, come on! Having her play Ma Barker??? Her "sons" all look like they could be her brothers. It's also creepy in that you think there are going to be incestuous relationships occurring (thank goodness there aren't, hope that doesn't count as a spoiler). With Eric Roberts and Alyssa Milano added into the cast, this one is B-movie 'straight to video' all the way.<br /><br />The scenes between Purvis and Ma Barker, either in person or on the phone, are a primer in terrible, terrible acting. Oh, wait, I forgot terrible, terrible writing as well. Chalk this one up to experience. A bad experience. | negative |
One should have the right to expect from people who make a film about the Second Coming and the Third Testament, that they had read the other two, or at least knew a little more about them than miracles and Judgement Day. This film contains absolutely nothing of relevance for viewers who are interested in Jesus, religion or philosophy -- there is only the standard British social realism with guttural dialects and plump characters in pubs.<br /><br />Actually, good candidates for a real Third Testament have been published several times - like "A Course in Miracles" or "Conversations with God". They all have thought-provoking new twists and angles for Christian faith and theology.<br /><br />The most interesting information in IMDb's rating is not the number of stars, but how many people who have bothered to vote. In four years, only 387 people have bothered to vote for this film. As usual, the enthusiasts are the most eager. For comparison, have a look at "Jesus Christ, Superstar" - original version from 1973. | negative |
For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part. | negative |
Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying. | negative |
In what appears an attempt to mix drama and comedy, Manuel Gomez Pereira made this film, 'Things that make life worthwhile. "It is not an original discovery, by many voice you have (quite off the pitch, by the way), but it departs somewhat from the norm in the Spanish cinema. The downside is that the elements forming the film are poorly combined, and while some points are not well developed, others are out of place. A day in the lives of two people close to the median age. It's basically what the movie Gómez Pereira. Jorge (Eduard Fernandez) is a stationary (parado) one which, despite load on your back with a drama major, seems willing to see things change. Only this explains his commitment to a minor could mean a turning point in its existence. In line with Audrey Tautou of 'Long dating' (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2004), Jorge says things like this to herself: "if I find a coin before the corner that is now going to change my luck. " Of course it finds it, begins to play 'Today could be a great day' (Hoy puede ser un gran dia)by Joan Manuel Serrat and in a few crosses on its way Hortensia (Ana Belen).She is another woman entry age, divorced and a little lonely. Take valeriana for sleeping, organizes birthday parties as an exemplary mother, said her belief in God and leads to a speed of homicidal mother. Hortensia is a woman of many contradictions in his behavior, life was going in his head driving data as "70% of people fall in love only once in a lifetime" and said although it is short of Jorge and unemployed and does not preclude the possibility that it is a "sadistic" sleeping in his shoulder in the cinema at the earliest opportunity. Later came a communion, a dance in the luxurious wedding banquet, the back of a car and other things that players seem to live unique experiences like that but end up doing quite heavy for the viewer. 'Things that make life worthwhile' debate between us is the drama of two adult persons who have no other that leads them to see where their strange relationship and, conversely, make us take the case as a comedy, focusing on things like a Chinese singing at a wedding (which seem to be amusing in itself) or the gait of a drunk person. The problem is that it does not leave us time to connect with the players, therefore we can not identify with the dramatic, and not give us a solid base comic too, leaving everything except pure joke. In the end, all mixed in a way that the viewer no longer know very well whether to laugh or mourn, and ends up not doing either. And it is true that something is not seen a thousand times, is not the kind of film that we find to bend every corner, but it is not sufficiently different or special as we want to do. Ana Belén (which apparently far less than the 53 years that has in this film) and Eduard Fernandez are two actors who are very enjoyable to see working, but this time it seems ready or comfortable enough in scenes that require him to break the calm that prevails in the film, so in moments like the "accident" with the children of the bar thing seems to be slipping from their hands. Perhaps a very dramatic change that has to do, but that is no excuse to lower our guard. In any case, both interpreters are erected easily the highlight of the function. 'Things that make life worthwhile' work only up to the modest level of entertainment. Any claim that is beyond that point has not been fulfilled, as a romantic comedy or dramatic as that, we presume, they wanted to do, can not afford to have little moments finished successful (beyond bad) as that in which one of the characters talk and laugh, lost drunk, compared to a boy who remains in a coma in part because of him. Neither do much for people like Rosario Pardo, making the typical friend launched whose biggest contribution to the film is the phrase "must be screwed over," and songs from the soundtrack, though significant, not just fit. It is true that the film by Manuel Gomez Pereira has its hits (some of the moments involving Jose Sacristan), but the whole is a anodyne Story, a film with good intentions and a nice result when the better. | positive |
In my opinion, this is an absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece. If you ask me, the stepmother (voice of Lucille La Verne) was truly diabolical. You'll have to see the movie if you want to know why. On the other hand, despite the fact that she did a lot of housekeeping, Cinderella (voice of Ilene Stanley) was a very beautiful lady. To me, the scenery was beautiful, the cast was well chosen, and the writing was strong. Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this absolutely romantic Disney masterpiece to all of you who haven't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it. | positive |
Undoubtedly the best heavy metal horror item made in the manically headbangin' 80's, which admittedly doesn't sound like much considering how utterly abysmal many other entries in this odd little fright film sub-genre like "Hard Rock Zombies," "Blood Tracks," "Terror on Tour," and the especially ungodly Jon-Mikl Thor-starring stinker "Rock'n'Roll Nightmare" tended to be. That aside, this one still deserves props for downplaying the excessive splatter and needlessly flashy special f/x razzle-dazzle in favor of focusing on adolescent high school characters who are depicted with greater acuity and plausibility than the norm for a mid-80's teen-targeted scarefest. Moreover, the film's pointed sardonic parodying of both ridiculously overblown 80's heavy metal stupidity and the nauseating self-righteousness of the uptight killjoy conservative stiffs who claimed it was the devil's music are very clever and on the money funny (famed Greed Decade heavy metal god Ozzy Osbourne has a hilarious bit as a smarmy anti-metal TV evangelist!).<br /><br />Marc Price (the hopelessly dweeby Skippy on "Family Ties") gives a surprisingly strong and winning performance as Eddie "Ragman" Weinbauer, a geeky, socially awkward and severely persecuted heavy metal aficionado who's constantly picked on by the stuck-up jerk preppie bullies who make up the majority of the student body at Lakeridge High School (the cruelty and mean-spiritedness of the high school kids is nailed with painfully credible accuracy). Eddie's life takes a turn for the worse when his rock star idol Sammi Curr (an impressively whacked-out portrayal by Tony Fields) perishes in a hotel fire. Hip local disc jockey Nuke (KISS front-man Gene Simmons in a cool cameo) hooks Eddie up with Sammi's final, unreleased album, which when played backwards resurrects Curr's malevolent spirit back from the dead. Sammi encourages Eddie to sic him on all the vile scumbags who make poor Eddie's life the proverbial living hell, only to have meek Eddie prove to be a most reluctant would-be accomplice. It's up to Eddie, assisted by token nice girl Leslie Graham (likeably essayed by the lovely Lisa Orgolini), to stop Sammi before things get too out of hand.<br /><br />Ably directed with commendable thoughtfulness and sensitivity by character actor Charles Martin Smith (who also briefly appears as a nerdy school teacher), smartly written by Michael S. Murphy, Joel Soisson, and Rhet Topham, and capably acted by a uniformly up-to-snuff cast, this surefire sleeper even comes complete with a handful of nifty "jump" moments (an outrageous attack in the back of a car by a grotesquely lecherous long-tongued mutant thingie rates as the definite highlight), a rousing "Carrie"-style high school dance slaughter sequence, a neatly utilized Halloween setting, revenge being correctly shown as a truly ugly business, and a solid central message that you shouldn't make a particular over-hyped person your hero strictly because of the calculated anti-establishment posturing said fellow does to qualify for that special status. | positive |
I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly. | negative |
Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.<br /><br />Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid. | negative |
With no affinity towards any type of filmmaking, and a healthy appreciation of documentaries, I can honestly say I was angry at myself for bothering to sit through the entire length of "20 Dates". I won't waste your time with the plot, you may read other reviews. I will say though that Berkowitz's hyper, Woody Allen-style narration was extremely annoying. You either wished he'd lay off the coffee or ingest some tranquilizers. And it's potentially apparent to Berkowitz himself that this film was a bad idea, as parts of it details his trials to finance the documentary. Forgive me for disguising insults as compliments, but I'll give credit to Berkowitz for having the skills to convince some idiot to finance this horrid piece of ****. I appreciate the boundaries & intentions of the film here, but even when regarding the standards Berkowitz sets for himself, he fires off and misses on all levels. In closing, I'm sure many of these female companions were not at ease going on a date with a twitchy wanna-be filmmaker, and therefore I question the film's sense of authenticity. Hey Myles, I loved your film the first time I saw it... when it appeared as an episode of Seinfeld or was a film directed by Woody Allen or Kevin Smith. | negative |
This is a below average "whodunit" with the cliche everyone in the living room routine. Charlie Chan is a Secret Service Agent doing government work, and he must find who killed a scientist working on a bomb to defeat German U-boats in World War Two. There is little to recommend with this movie, since the neither the bomb nor the scientist nor the war have much to do with the plot. Charlie Chan fans will most likely find this movie disappointing. Who dunit? Who cares? | negative |
Possible spoilers re: late-appearing cameos <br /><br />Seldom does one see so many fine & memorable character actors (almost entirely actresses to be precise) in one film. Even though a few only appear for cameos, each one is a gem. The British do this mix of comedy and real-life pathos better than anyone IMO, so it is no surprise that most of the actors are Brits.<br /><br />The music is great; no doubt much had to be dubbed (does Leslie Caron *really* play the bass so well? maybe - who knew?) But Clio Lane was unmistakably herself - her warm visceral sound still turns my crank like few other jazz singers.<br /><br />As an aging musician myself, not quite as old and certainly not in that class of course, it was a heartening film as well -- a great film for anyone whose wondering if they're past it in their profession or avocation whatever it may be. And of course a great celebration of the life of the stage.<br /><br />I missed a little of the opening, but a provisional 9/10 -- and it certainly makes we want to see the whole thing. | positive |
I am from Texas and my family vacationed a couple of years ago to Sante Fe with my brother. He suggested we go to see the church with the staircase. I was absolutely blown away by the miracles that took place there. The movie is great - Barbara Hershey and William Petersen were perfect for the parts they played. It is amazing, absolutely amazing. If you have not seen the staircase in person, it is worth the trip to go see it. The wood is beautiful and the architecture is astounding. Just being in the chapel gives me goose bumps! To read about the history of the chapel, and then to see its beauty is breathtaking. See the movie - it is GREAT! Then see the staircase in person! | positive |
This movie started out good, i felt like i was watching an adult version of Seinfeld. Much to quickly i started questioning the situations and actions of the main characters, and found no answers to why they were doing what they were doing. All the acting was superb but only a few scenes had brief moments where they were actually funny. Dan Cortese was amazing. I loved him in this role. His agent should show this movie to casting agents. Watch the first few scenes and then find something better, or else you will find yourself totally lost in this mess. I found this in a bin at a video store. It cost me two dollars and due to the rareness of this movie i feel like it was a good price. | negative |
Although the actors were good, specially Fritzi Haberland as the blind Lilly, the film script is obsessively pretentious and completely arbitrary. A famous theatre director (Hilmir Snær Guðnason), becoming blind after a car accident, is on the run for himself and his destiny. Lilly, being sightless since her birth, is teacher for blind persons, and wants to make him "seeing" again. (Blind persons are seeing with their fingers, nose and ears.) Here this movie is becoming a roadmovie; and the longer the road becomes, the closer their relation develops, which was predictable since the beginning of the film. The theatre director is on the road to his mother (Jenny Gröllmann). His mother is living somewhere in Russia on the sea and making artistic installations - of course, what should she do other! - and she is still living, because she is waiting his son, to die. My God! This are destinies!<br /><br />Finally the son arrived! Mum is celebrating a big party! At the beach. Wind is blowing and a pianist is playing on a real piano in the middle of a dune. Yes, they are celebrating her farewell. The son arrives just in time. Mother can finally swallow the pills administered by a pretty nurse. Now a great artist can die in the arms of her great artist son, speaking sad contemplations about live in perfect German, while the son is answering with a rough accent. Because the son is unable to see, he is not falling in love to the nurse, - the film script would have become also too complicate! - but is looking for Lilly on the way back to home.<br /><br />Parallel to this roadmovie the sister of Lilly, staying at home is asking a gawky schoolmate to deflower her, who has first to booze himself to courage. The occasion is favourable. Because Mum (Tina Engel) is on journey together with the lover of Lilly, Paul (Harald Schrott). They are after Lilly, to bring her back. Paul and the mother of Lilly are not falling in love, because the film script would have become too complicate. The film script missed to make out of Paul something exceptional too. I would suggest an architect or a Pianist, or course a famous one! When they finally find Lilly, they want to convince her, to come back to Paul, because he has two eyes to see and is able to care for her. But Lilly felt in love to his pupil, the theatre director; did I mention, that he was even a famous theatre director?<br /><br />This is German film art! As you may see in this pretentious production, that the German film subsidy fund is not always producing good films, because they subsidy just such kind of pseudo intellectual films. This film is really embarrassing. I have the impression, that the film script has been cobbled together from some highbrows in coffee shops and restaurants. Everybody is entitled to contribute with an idea. Probably also Til Schweiger has contributed with some intellectual flash of wit, being a co-producer. I was reminded by this film script to an other German film of absolute painfulness: "Barfuss" - already the spelling of the title is not right! "Barfuss" DVD cover writes proudly: "A Til Schweiger Film". This film got also subsidies of Filmstiftung NRW, Filmförderung Hamburg and the FFA.<br /><br />Please don't spoil your time with this film! There are really good films in Germany. Watch out for film directors like Marcus H. Rosenmüller, Joseph Vilsmaier, Hans Steinbichler, Hans-Christian Schmid, Faith Akin ... | negative |
This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.<br /><br />This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average. | negative |
This is a polarising film. People either love it or despise it, it seems. Me, I despise it. The film comes from the same context as Lindsay Anderson's Oh Lucky Man, but while that is a masterpiece, this is just horrible.<br /><br />Both films take Kafka's unfinished novel - America, for their inspiration and general ideal. America is a surreal story of a youth's travels through the country. Kafka uses the this character as a pure observer, one who does not change over the course of the journey (although the book is about 300 pages and still seems only a quarter finished, so we'll never know). Allowing Kafka to concentrate and comment on the absurd/surreal situations and surroundings. Oh Lucky Man follows this same template to show Britain through the eyes of Malcolm McDowell and Weekend does the same for France.<br /><br />Both films are also hugely Brechtian, using various tricks and techniques to point up the fact that this is NOT REAL, this is confabulation etc. But the difference comes where Oh Lucky Man uses the constructed film to convey the absurdity of life and the class system, Weekend uses the constructed film to bludgeon us to death with ideological polemic. Because Godard goes further than Anderson in his Brechtian principles, we end up with two principle characters in which we have no investment, at all. We're forced to spend 90 minutes with them, yet we couldn't care less about them. Deliberately so. But in doing this, Godard leaves us with a film that is entirely about his own message, which, in the first half of the film is provided through relentless and overbearing symbolism, and in the second half through a series of long speeches directed to camera. Combined with unpleasant and unnecessary scenes such as the really horrible pig slaying, far worse than any of the off camera violence of the car crashes.<br /><br />The end result is like listening to a student political apparatchik droning on and on and on about his views whilst repeatedly kicking you in the head so that you get the message. The problem with Brecht is, if you alienate the audience too much, then you've alienated them from what you are trying to convey. Which always seemed self evident to me.<br /><br />The parts that really stick in the craw for this movie though, is the contrast between the extremely sexually explicit verbal description of the threesome at the start and the off-screen comical rape in the middle, which, even if it could be viewed as allegorical, completely destroys the film's faith in itself and it's characters, what little of it existed in the first place. It's so French with a capital F, it hurts.<br /><br />Watch Oh Lucky Man instead. That is a work of genius. Weekend is a work of pretension.<br /><br />Two stars, and only for the traffic jam scene and the piano scene, which are just hints at genius, although they actually make the end result more frustrating and unsatisfying as without them, this is a bad film by the worst most pretentious director in the world, with them, well it's obvious that this is a damn good technical director making the most intellectually pretentious film in the world. Somehow that's far worse. | negative |
Pop quiz: you're a part of the modern armed forces in peacetime on routine manoeuvres and you find yourself thrown back in time with a chance to change history. What do you do? Well, if you're a Hollywood studio, you change the Japanese G.I.s in G.I. Samurai (aka Timeslip) to the crew of an American aircraft carrier, have them debate stopping the attack on Pearl Harbour for 90 minutes and then go home and hope that no-one reminds you that Japan did it first and with more balls in 1979 with this Sonny Chiba movie. But unlike its Hollywood counterpart The Final Countdown, this sees its premise through: thrown back 400 years into the Japanese feudal wars, its peacetime soldiers decide that their best hope of getting back lies in provoking history by trying to change it by joining with a warlord to conquer the country cue lots of tank and helicopter vs. samurai action, including a very impressive unrelenting 25 minute battle sequence featuring a cast of thousands inflicting serious damage on each other. And yes, there are decapitations.<br /><br />Of course, things don't go as planned, and even superior firepower doesn't stand up as well as hoped to thousands of soldiers. Even before that, the soldiers are falling out with each other into those who want to go home, those who want to go to war and those who want to rape and pillage for the Hell of it. Impressively directed and surprisingly well thought through, the soft rock and country and western songs are sometimes a distraction, especially when they feature English lyrics sung by Japanese singers who audibly can't pronounce the words let alone speak the language, but it's a forgivable flaw in a surprisingly good sci-fi actioner.<br /><br />Optimum's UK DVD is a good transfer of the uncut 138-minute version. | positive |
I have seen just about all of Miyazaki's films, and they are all beautiful and captivating. But this one rises above the rest. This movie totally impressed me!<br /><br />I fell in love with Pazu and Sheeta, and their sweet, caring friendship. They were what made the movie for me. Of course, the animation is also superb and the music captures the feelings in the film perfectly. But the characters are the shining point in this movie: they are so well developed and full of personality.<br /><br />Now, let me clarify: I'm really talking about the Japanese version of the movie (with English subs). While the English dub is good (mostly), it simply pales in comparison to the original language version. The voices are better, the dialogue, everything. So I suggest seeing (and hearing) the movie the way it originally was. | positive |
I liked this movie because it told a very interesting story about living in a totally different world at the south pole. Susan Sarandon is such a good actor, that she made an interesting, strong character out of mediocre writing. The true story displays a devastating situation for her character to overcome. | positive |
Fashionably fragmented, yet infuriatingly half-realized character-study, an examination of the different personalities of two college roommates: a talented but undisciplined star basketball player, and a pot-smoking, womanizing rabble-rouser. We never learn why these young men are friends. They may share confusions about the world and their places in it, but they don't seem to have anything else in common. Making his directorial debut, Jack Nicholson--who also co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Larner, based upon Larner's book--doesn't introduce us to the characters with any clarity, nor he does shape the scenes to help us identify with anyone on the screen. There are some very decent performances here (particularly from newcomer William Tepper in the central role), but most of the picture is unformed (perhaps intentionally), sketchy or unsure. Bruce Dern plays the hard-driving basketball coach, Karen Black is the older, married lady Tepper is having an affair with, and Michael Margotta is Tepper's wayward friend (in an off-putting, over-the-top performance). Nicholson fails to set up the sequences with any particular flavor, preferring (I assume) to let the character interaction dominate the film's tone; his script is no help either, and as a result it is unclear whom we're supposed to sympathize with. Small, random moments do work (a supermarket fight between Tepper and Black, Dern visiting Tepper in his dorm-room, all of the scenes set on the court), however the entire third act of the picture is an excruciating mess. Hoping to juxtapose an all-important b-ball game with a sexual assault, Nicholson shows no style at his craft (nor does he earn points for chutzpah, as his staging of these events is squashy and ugly). When a director goes out of his way to humiliate his actors, one has to question his motives in doing so. Perhaps if "Drive, He Said" ultimately made some sort of powerful statement in the bargain, audiences could forgive the filmmaker for his lapses in judgment and taste. Unfortunately, the perplexing closer is as dumbfounding as much of the rest of the movie. *1/2 from **** | negative |
The premise to this movie was one which focused on the polarization of of ideologies in the United States.. This was a highly combustible scenario in America whereby two entirely different cultures collided. What justified such heinously depraved actions anyway?.. As this film presents the scene,(while Hickock and Smith drank) these two men were not intoxicated, nor were they under any kind of influence of drugs!! It was a clear cut case of cold and calculated deliberation.. Basically, these violent acts were the end result of emotional and social neglect... Anytime past 1975, we as a nation have nurtured an empathy for deviates who have been victimized by their environment... However, this incident takes place in 1959!! This dreadful revelation sideswiped us, and mired the nation into a tailspin of conflicting ethics!! With the recent release of the movie "Capote" based on Truman Capote, who was the creator of the documentary "In Cold Blood", the American people have cultivated a new found fascination with this film!! Robert Blake played the role of Perry Smith, one of the villains in this movie... This is seemingly appropriate given the notoriety he has been involved with concerning his personal life!! "In Cold Blood" centers on the element of the unexplained... There was no vengeance involved, there was no material gain to be acquired, there was no potential for social advancement here either, this is merely an instance of a latent and insidiously belligerent anger which ends certainly did not justify the means!! The situational diatribes which Hickock and Smith lamented about were always ambiguous!! Under the circumstances, why then should they take their frustrations out on an anonymously unsuspecting and innocent Kansas family?.. Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) plays the prosecuting attorney who is sickened by this act of macabre capriciousness!! His argument is thoroughly convincing... His contention being: "These two men who demonstrated no mercy are now asking for yours" This is a line of logic which would induce me to render a verdict of a conviction if I were to be one of the members of the jury!! Absolute disdain for your precarious plight in life does not serve as vindication for orchestrating a capital crime!! It was Capote's instincts that dictated that such a deranged act of violence should have been brought to the American public's attention!! As it turn out, it was a harbinger of things to come.. "In Cold Blood" did just that!! This incident was the calm before the storm relating to a pertinent aspect of emergence to the radical 1960's!! Such a lethal charade also served as an insight to the isolated interests which would besiege many typical Americans for the future!!!<br /><br />Truman Capote does a tremendous job on authenticating this savage occurrence with his book, (which was a best seller) and, with this documentary as well... The acting in this film by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson, as well as people like John Forsythe, was incredible!! The director, Richard Brooks, ("Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", "Blackboard Jungle" "Elmer Gantry" and "Key Largo" to name but a few!!) was outstanding in his collaborative efforts in this movie!! I think that "In Cold Blood" is one of the best films in the history of movies!! The film depicts two reprehensible spawns of depravity who delved into demented theatrics, and wound up captivating a trite gratification for being acknowledged at a pejorative nationwide level!!.... This movie pinpoints a psychological discontentment which spurs on an emerging bevy of counter culture purveyors of violence!! Our nation's ideologies are incredibly different now, than they were in 1959!! This movie introduces the American people to the emotional and vacillating culprits who initiated such a precarious metamorphosis in our overall value system!! I recommend to everyone that they see this movie..."In Cold Blood" was the focal point to the film "Capote"! Think about it, making a movie about a movie constitutes a rare and coveted accolade in Hollywood!! In the case of "In Cold Blood" it is an extreme example of a movie which is vicariously clairvoyant, intellectually elevating, and, of course, it goes without saying, "In Cold Blood" was utterly spellbinding, as well as a totally remarkable movie!! | positive |
This movie surprised me. Some things were "clicheish" and some technological elements reminded me of the movie "Enemy of the State" starring Will Smith. But for the most part very entertaining- good mix with Jamie Foxx and comedian Mike Epps and the 2 wannabe thugs Julio and Ramundo (providing some comic relief). This is a movie you can watch over again-say... some Wednesday night when nothing else is on. I gave it a 9 for entertainment value. | positive |
Because that's what Hell Ride pretty much is. Larry Bishop and Tarantino partying on the Weinstein's money with the promise to deliver a movie sometime down the line. I'm all for fake boobage and booze as much as the next guy but did we really need the movie? Really there's nothing worse than the reheated second-hand leftovers of an old trend. And I'm not even talking about 70's grindhouse cinema because Hell Ride has none of the raw and unpolished feel of the era it purports to pay homage to. No, this is slick and glossy MTV Hollywood through and through. The old trend I'm talking about is the self-consciously pseudo-hip quirky cinematic world where Tarantino meets Guy Ritchie and Robert Rodriguez. All three guys were at least talented and found success for a reason. Hell Ride is just a second-hand copy, fickle and uninspired, polished to the max when it should be raw, the "supercool" aspect coming off forced and silly.<br /><br />There's no reason for example why such a simple and utterly inane story has to be told in convoluted, back-and-forth in time fashion. It's just a post-Tarantino quirk. There's also no reason why the dialogues have to be so mind-numbingly pointless, people flapping their gums while saying NOTHING: at least when Travolta was talking about cheeseburgers in Pulp Fiction it felt fresh. Dialogues here amount to little more than pseudo-macho posturing. There's also no reason why a grating rock'n'roll guitar has to twangle aimlessly over the entire movie. Perhaps the lowest Hell Ride hits is when it tries to be quasi-existential. There's a hilarious dream/illusion scene in the desert where Bishop eats peyote and sees colours. I was half-expecting an old Indian to come out and offer nuggets of wisdom.<br /><br />The only saving grace of this abysmal turd is the boobage and Vinnie Jones' monologue about his wings tattooes (and maybe some of the desert exterior shots). Lots of boobage and hot scantily clad babes. Now that's something I can get behind but a movie they don't make. Everything else is just an empty shell, an imitation of other infinitely more talented imitators. | negative |
After losing the Emmy for her performance as Mama Rose in the television version of GYPSY, Bette won an Emmy the following year for BETTE MIDLER: DIVA LAS VEGAS, a live concert special filmed for HBO from Las Vegas. Midler, who has been performing live on stage since the 1970's, proves that she is still one of the most electrifying live performers in the business. From her opening number, her classic "Friends", where she descends from the wings atop a beautiful prop cloud, Bette commands the stage with style and charisma from a rap-styled number called "I Look Good" she then proves that she has a way with a joke like few other performers in this business as she segues her way through a variety of musical selections. The section of the show where she salutes burlesque goes on a little too long but she does manage to incorporate her old Sophie Tucker jokes here to good advantage (even though she actually forgets one joke in the middle of telling it, but her ad-libbing until she remembers it is hysterical). Bette also treats us to "Rose's Turn" from GYPSY and the title tune from her smash film THE ROSE as well as a shameless plug for her hit movie THE FIRST WIVES CLUB. She brings the house down near the end with "Stay with Me, Baby" from THE ROSE and her only #1 hit record, "Wind Beneath My Wings" from BEACHES. It's a dazzling evening of musical comedy entertainment and for Midler fans, it's a must. | positive |
A wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carné and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of "uh-huh". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10. | negative |
For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.<br /><br />This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more. <br /><br />I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.<br /><br />Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10. | positive |
If you're a "child of the Eighties" like me, you probably remember this 1981 Disney movie--one of Disney's first PG-rated films, and Michael J. Fox's screen debut. I can remember watching this film over and over on HBO when I was on middle school, and I only recently found a very old copy of it, since Disney stopped producing the movie several years ago. Needless to say, this is a real fun movie to watch. Five college teams decipher clues in an evening race around Los Angeles, trying to reach the finish line first. Watch for the cameo from Paul Reubens. From the cheesy music to the disco scene with the fat twins, this is a quintessential 1980s fun film that you'll love. | positive |
I am not a very good writer, so I'll keep this short. World at War is the best WWII documentary that I've seen. I've seen different WWII documentaries (not only English/North American) and this documentary seems to be the most complete WWII documentary that I've seen. I think it could talk a bit more about the Great Depression and why/how Hitler got to power, but it does a very good job at covering the war. It seems to be complete and objective/fair to everyone. It does not exaggerate or diminish roles of different nations. It has a lot of original footage, including color footage and many eye witnesses (it was made in 70's when a lot more were alive). It has great music and narrator. All-in-All I gave this one 10/10, because it's that good. (I haven't seen specials in DVD version so I cannot comment on those) | positive |
This starts off in Pennsylvania in 1913. A bunch of kids are killed in a mine explosion purposely set off by the mine's owner. Cut to 2006. Recently widowed Karen (Lori Heuring), her teenage daughter Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and little girl Emma (Chloe Moretz) move to a remote house located near that mine. What they don't know is the ghosts of the little kids haunt the woods and kill anyone who's around after dark.<br /><br />Slow and boring "horror" movie. The premise is obvious and has been done to death already. Also there are huge gaps in logic in the story. It's never made clear why these kids just kill anybody or why they EAT the bodies afterwards (Yes--it's shown). They're dead already--why do they need food? And why haven't they gotten the main villain in the story long before? He was around the area. Why pick this time to attack him? Also the characters aren't the least bit likable. Sarah comes across the worst. It has a few saving graces. The location is beautiful and eerie at the same time, some of the killings were VERY bloody and brutal and the kids themselves looked spooky silently walking through the woods at night. But, all in all, I was bored and fighting to stay awake. You can skip this one. | negative |
After Highlander 2 (which I am still in denial about), I thought is was impossible to make a sequel that could make me cry because it was so bad. I was wrong. I loved the original Wargames, however, this movie is inaccurate with computer details and details about the original movie. The original Wargames at least had some hacks that worked. Whoever wrote this movie knew NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS except how to use a word processor. I doubt he or she even watched the original movie. The acting isn't even convincing. Please save yourselves, under no circumstances watch this movie. I don't care if the channel is stuck on the TV and you can't turn the TV off. THIS MOVIE WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE. | negative |
Well...I like this movie first of all because it's very well thought of... and well..because the um...director and others chose an extremely great actor to play Mike....and also my last reason because ( my opinion) Elijah Wood is so so hot!!! | positive |
Surprisingly good early effort from Alfred Hitchcock. One of the only original screenplays written by Hitchcock himself, this film shows remarkable story structure. It kicks off with a rousing boxing match in which carnival champ "One Round" Jack loses to a challenger from the audience who happens to be a professional prizefighter. The movie then slows down to develop the characters and introduce a love triangle between Jack, his girl and the professional boxer. The rest of the film is a dramatic buildup to the rematch between the two men, this time for the heavyweight crown. Even in this early film, Hitchcock shows his talent for meaningful cinematography and prop placement. An armband bought for the girl by the boxer continues to pop up throughout the movie as a symbol of her unfaithfulness. The only big detractor of this film is that the art of filming a boxing match had not yet been perfected in 1927. The final match, as a result, ends up being somewhat anticlimactic. The story, though, is what carries this film through. | positive |
I guess I've seen worse films, but that may be becuz I'm so jaded by how standard these bad horror movies are. The killer monster thing is really really bad, basically its a guy in some kind of green body suit. There is much worse acting as far as B movie go, but don't think for a second this was anything stellar, hell no. It actually did have a plot with substance, but was still pretty stupid. Basically its just a bad low budget horror movie. But at least its not as bad as titanic, that movie sucks balls, this one just sucks. The blood looks really fake in this movie. Thats one complaint I have about all the horror of the new millinium, low grade gore, looks stupid. A good gruesome death scene with really fake blood is so stupid. At least there was a nice shower scene | negative |
A horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released. | negative |
"the day time ended" is an incredible picture. in some ways, it's better than "close encounters of the third kind." (i prefer cheesy independent flicks to big budget spectaculars.) the special effects ARE cheesy, but that's a big part of the fun. jim davis gives an excellent performance in this film. it's probably one of the best roles he ever had in a feature. the musical score is very good. the story DOESN'T make sense. BUT THAT ONLY MAKES IT ALL THE MORE INTRIGUING. like many of the best works of art, "the day time ended" isn't afraid to be subtle and ambiguous. "the day time ended" may be a low budget indie film, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it with the "existential" European films of the fifties and sixties. (many of which were low budget independent productions themselves.) | positive |
Another detailed work on the subject by Dr Dwivedi takes us back in time to pre-partioned Panjab. Dr Dwivedi chose a difficult subject for his movie debut. He has worked on all meticulous details to bring the story to life. The treatment of the subject is very delicate.<br /><br />Even though we have not been to the region during that time, the sets and costumes look real. Unlike most movies made on partition, this one focuses not on the gory details of violence to attract audience, but on its after-effects. The characters come to life. Priyanshu Chatterjee has given an impressive performance. Manoj Bajpai has acted his heart out showing the plight of a guilt-ridden man. The rest of the cast has done a good job too. | positive |
If you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner. | negative |
I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.<br /><br />There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.<br /><br />This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it! | negative |
I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............ | negative |
I enjoyed every moment of this beautiful film and was intrigued about this female painter I had never heard of before. So I set out exploring her life and work afterwards. As could be expected, I found out that the film was not exactly historically accurate. I was a little astounded however by the very negative comments on the film because of this inaccuracy. Come on, guys, a film isn't and shouldn't be a biography (nor a novel!). Any historical film distorts reality, because it should be a work of art in its own right. A film director is fully entitled to use elements from reality and history to create a world of his own. Artemisia is a wonderful film and I think it brought many people (including some that now give negative comments) to explore the life and work of this fascinating artist. | positive |
This was a very gritty movie about anti-semitism. However, unlike GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT (that also deals with anti-semitism), the movie has aged well and doesn't seem heavy-handed. In other words, it deals with the topic without seeming preachy or trite by today's standards.<br /><br />Robert Ryan plays one of the most vile characters, as he beats a guy to death just because he's Jewish. Robert Mitchum plays the investigator trying to get to the bottom of this crime.<br /><br />I give the movie kudos for its gritty and unflinching look at hate. It is in many ways an example of Film Noir--even though the topic isn't about the usual gangsters or robbery. | positive |
Now this is a movie I really dislike. It's one of the most boring Horror movies from the 90's mainly because it starts slow and centers in a boring atmosphere. The settings are not even attractive for the eye and do not serve for the movie's purpose. <br /><br />The puppets look really cheesy , not in a good way like in the Puppet Master 80's flicks. What did they do to our favorite toys?!<br /><br />The story is lame, not interesting and NEVER really explains the sinister origins of the puppets. There aren't death scenes like in previous movies and the f/x are terrible. <br /><br />I felt asleep the first time I watched it, so I can recommend it for insomniacs. | negative |
This is another one of Hitchcock's highest rated movies and rightfully so. This is a tale of two men who meet on a train and playfully exchange murder fantasies. One of them (Robert Walker) takes it seriously and this leads Guy Haines (Farley Granger) to trouble with the law. Another fast moving Hitchcock movie with lots of great scenes (the carousel scene and the tennis match are worthy of mentioning). Not a movie to be missed- it is a shame that no one will re-release this on DVD with loads of extras- just a cheap Warner Brothers DVD is all thats out there now. | positive |
Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2. | negative |
I just love this show.It's so funny and cool.Kuzco is such a hilarious and interesting character, I love him.He's the thing that makes this show what it is, although Kronk and Yzma are so funny and charming too.Everything about this show is great for me, because it always manages to make me laugh, no matter if it's only once an episode.It's just so funny and all the characters are so lovable and cool, it makes the show worth the time to watch, unlike some crap on Disney channel.Give this show a try next time it's on, if you've seen the movie, and even if you haven't seen the movie, you'll find this to be very enjoyable anyway, so go ahead. | positive |
Man, are you serious? Did you read the book or watch this movie? Well, if you did, let me warn you, it is bogus. Mark Furhman has been seeking a job since losing his job with the LAPD. You remember him, don't you? He was the guy that lied on the stand and gave the OJ Simpson defense a foothold they were looking for. Well, he has written three books since then. I have read all three of them. No, I am not a fan, they were given to me. HOWEVER, I will tell you one similarity in all three, they grossly distort the importance of Mark Furhman. He shamelessly exaggerates his stature in all three. In "Murder in Spokane", he pretends that he had something to do with catching the killer, when he had nothing to do with it. In all books he takes great delight in running down local law enforcement efforts. Kind of like his efforts were run down in the OJ trial. In this movie, there are plenty of slow motion shots of ladies looking at Furhman and lusting after him. Many other shots have him at the center of attention, when in reality, I am sure the only thing people were thinking at the time was "hey, isn't that the racist that caused OJ to get off?" This was an interesting real life story, but not a good movie over it. | negative |
...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl. | negative |
This is a very funny Ealing comedy about a community in central London who, through an unusual set of circumstances, discover they are not English, but are an annex of the French province of Burgundy.<br /><br />The film features comic actor Stanley Holloway (best known as Alfred Doolittle in MY FAIR LADY), as well as a host of other classic comic actors of the period.<br /><br />The story was apparently based on a news item at the time, when the Canadian Government "officially" gave a hotel room to a visiting European member of royalty. The idea actually reminded me of the real-life case of the Hutt River Province in Western Australia, where a landowner "seceded" from the Australian Government due to a wool quota dispute. (It was never acknowledged by the Western Australian or Australian Governments).<br /><br />This is a great script that plays with a lot of political and economic issues, rather like the TV show "Yes Minister"; as well as being a great little eccentric character piece as well. | positive |
This movie was charming. An accountant wants more from life than the approved conventional success. What makes it work so well, and makes it so different from the standard dance movie is that it really isn't about becoming "Great" it is simply about finding a way to express one's self. The big triumph at the end is not the winning of a contest, not the discovery of a whole new life style, but the simple joy of doing what you want to fulfill the other parts of your life. No one is discovering their passion, they are finding their quiet soul.<br /><br />The Japanese background makes the subtle oppression and "secret life" of ballroom dancing both understandable and personal. We can all see ourselves in the everyman. | positive |
This movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).<br /><br />Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1! | negative |
First of all,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as "Psycho" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.Don't waste your time. | negative |
Nightbreed is definitely my most favorite movie, I've worn more than one tape as it is. The make-up is awesome, the story is lovely. It takes a few different twists and isn't quite as deep as the story it's based on (Cabal, by Clive Barker) but for a movie adaption it stays very true to source material. The only problem with this movie were the producer's vain attempts to turn it into a teen slasher movie, hence the changed ending to allow for sequels *eye rolls*. Apparently someday we're going to be getting a Director's cut that will (I hope) clear up this bit of nonsense. Until then, I'd suggest it to anyone who like dark fantasy type horror as opposed to Freddy/Jason/Micheal type slashers. I really don't know what would be comparable... | positive |
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right. | negative |
Got back from Morocco then, where my dad was attached to the German embassy, when the film came out in Europe; took all my girlfriends to see it, show them the beauty of the country, where Jimi had played - and stayed -; where the hippies stopped after leaving Ibiza and before joining Goa. Sean Combs just celebrated at a friends restaurant in Marrakech recently, the Djema el Fna was much wilder in those days than it is now; the Stones went there earlier, Brian recorded in Tangiers ; so it's memories and family entertainment and I'm glad my son will get to know about the north of Africa watching this movie. Candice Bergen looks beautiful and oo7/Connery is pretty funny indeed; and Teddy Roosevelt as played by Brian Keith quite impressive. | positive |
This is a bit long (2 hours, 20 minutes) but it had a a lot of the famous Pearl Buck novel in it. In other words, a lot of ground to cover.<br /><br />It was soap-operish at times but had some visually dramatic moments, too, capped off by a locust attack at the end of the film. That was astounding to view. Considering this film is about 70 years old, the special-effects crew on this film did a spectacular job.<br /><br />Paul Muni and Luise Rainer were award-winning actors in their day and they don't disappoint here, both giving powerful performances. The only problem is credibility as all the Asians are played by Caucasions and some of them, like Walter Connolly, just don't look real. I'd like to see a re-make of this movie with all-Asian actors, not for PC reasons but to simply make the story look and sound more credible. | positive |
The plot of " Astronuat returns to Earth as a mutating monster " died out in the 1950s mainly down to the scientific fact that travelling outside the Earth's orbit doesn't humans cause to turn in to mutated monsters , and that the first film to use this plot THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was the only decent sci-fi movie to use the idea . So the idea of having the redundant plot return seems doomed from the start . Alas watching THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN it seems the plot is the least of its problems <br /><br />First of all this is an incredibly badly made movie . The budget is in single figures and I'm talking about lira not dollars . There is no cinematography to speak of and there's countless editing blunders . For example a photographer takes his ( Barely legal ) model for a photo shoot . Cut to a shot where the sun is directly behind model , then cut to shot of photographer where the sun is directly behind him, then cut back to the model where the sun is ...<br /><br />The lack of budget drags the film down in other aspects too . According to the trivia page the budget was so low the producers couldn't get any stock footage of Saturn so when astronaut Steve West mentions how beautiful Saturn looks we get footage of the sun . Actually the sun gives the most impressive performance in the film since the human actors wouldn't be employed by a porn studio . If I was appearing in this I wouldn't be scared by the eponymous monster - I'd be terrified of splinters from the rest of the cast . Perhaps we should be slightly forgiving though since the obvious lack of budget manifests itself in things like the actors having to wear their own clothes . A general for instance doesn't wear his nice fancy dress uniform complete with medals - he wears a denim jacket and baseball cap <br /><br />There has to be suspension of disbelief for a film like this to work but it fails on every level . The tone is set early on in the film where Mr Melty murders a nurse and escapes from the hospital . Instead of the police getting a call saying there's been a murder Dr Nelson just decides to track down his patient on his own own same as he'd look for a missing cat . It's also strange a thoroughly decomposing homicidal monster can walk down the road without anyone noticing , but this is typical of a film where horny 70 year olds stop their car down dark roads for a quickie and people nonchalantly mention their wife is pregnant whilst forgetting to tell the police that there's a monster on the loose .<br /><br />THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is Z grade rubbish . I can certainly understand why people enjoy this movie because it does reach the heights of " It's so bad it's good " but apart from Rick Baker's sometimes impressive make up effects it's nothing more than a very guilty pleasure | negative |
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four). | negative |
I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.<br /><br />As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.<br /><br />Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here. | negative |
Another one that slipped by the radar of most anyone. This little B produced gem is so full of new ideas in an old genre and so absolutely refreshing and inventive, that a dreadful feeling about the lack of cojones in today's cinema slowly overtakes your body. The final set piece is so innovative in its setting and style that it prefigures everyone from Tarantino to John Woo. Oh, and if you think "dying lines" are all cliche, wait for the dying line of FF. A piece of dialogue that could have torn you with laughter will take your heart. A true pleasure. Seek it and see it. You won't be sorry. | positive |
From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before
in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.<br /><br />And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.<br /><br />The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury"
); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with
a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"
<br /><br />Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed
) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.<br /><br />From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed
) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes
a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.<br /><br />But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.<br /><br />As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl!
but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.<br /><br />And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress. | negative |
I received a copy of this film from a friend for my 21st birthday, which he had obviously picked up for 99p from a bargain video bin.<br /><br />Never have I been so frustrated when watching a film - it was tedious, Adam West was wasted (literally) and, in retrospect, I cannot recall a single thing about it. My lack of enjoyment grew to such an extent that the second the credits rolled we smashed up the cassette and hung the tape around the living room. Just for good measure, we set fire to the cover. | negative |
If you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it. | negative |
Director / lead actor Dutcher revels in this look-at-me film, wherein he attempts to gain worldly acceptance for tarnishing the otherwise very upbeat world of Mormon missionaries. Some of the acting is fair. But some roles are unrealistic, i.e. the ominous (rather than fatherly) Mission President, etc. The film does give a fair look at how some missionaries may struggle with their faith, but the actual missionary program he claims to represent is far from his concept of it, in terms of being upbeat, cohesive, and inspired. The only inspiration I see in this film is Dutcher's self-inspiration. The film is slow and boring, and the shooting and screenplay look like a college student project. | negative |
Of all the major 30s star actresses, Miriam Hopkins has been the most bizarrely overlooked and underrated. Her string of excellent 30s and 40s films is quite impressive but she is often referred to as stagy or brittle. Yet she had a great sense of humor and was memorable in several comedies, including this film, Old Acquaintance (with Bette Davis), and The Smiling Lieutenant (with Maurice Chevalier and Claudette Colbert). Hopkins was famous for her dislike of Hollywood, and the results has been a bad rep--undeserved.<br /><br />In Wise Girl she play an heiress trying to rescue the children of her dead sister from their guardian--the sister's brother-in-law (Ray Milland). The film offers several hilarious scene such as Hopkins taking a bath is a storeroom, Hopkins joining Milland and Guinn Williams in a Greenwich Village restaurant for $3 apiece to act as "bohemians," and Hopkins going ringside during one of Williams' fights. Milland is also excellent and very funny.<br /><br />Hopkins and Milland make a great couple. The film also boasts solid support from Williams, Walter Abel, Henry Stephenson, James Finlayson, Margaret Dumont, Grace Hayle, Leonid Kinskey, and Inez Palange. The two girls are OK.<br /><br />But Hopkins, drunk on a "slice of wine" and wearing a pinned-together dress that is twice her size is hilarious as she blows at stray hairs while smoking.... A scream. | positive |
Having borrowed this movie from the local library a couple of weeks ago intending to originally see this on or a few days after Memorial Day, I finally got to seeing Sayonara just this morning. In this one Marlon Brando plays Major Lloyd "Ace" Gruver, a General's son who's been raised a certain way, being transfered from Korea to Japan where his girlfriend Eileen Webster (Patricia Owens) conveniently happens to be. Before leaving, he tries to persuade one of his men, a Joe Kelly (Red Buttons), out of marrying Japanese woman Katsumi (Miyoshi Umeki) since that's a violation of military fraternization laws. With the romance of him and Eileen on the outs, however, Ace not only becomes the best man at Joe and Katsumi's wedding, he falls for an Asian himself after he and Captain Mike Bailey (James Garner) go out on the town and watch headlining entertainer Hana-ogi (Miiko Taka) on stage. Bailey himself is dating one of the dancers, Fumiko-San (Reiko Kuba). Eileen herself seems to have a fancy for one of the Kabuki performers, Nakamura (Ricardo Montalban). I'll stop right there and say that this was a mostly compelling drama about the prejudices concerning American-Asian relations of romance that was very touching from beginning to end. Even seeing Hispanic Montalban playing an Oriental isn't too embarrassing (though it's a good thing his part is short). And there's some nice touches of humor like that of Brando's head hitting the top of Button's and Umeki's inside doorway more than once. Red and Miyoshi themselves deserve their Oscars especially Red with his defiant and proud emotions throughout. Rookie Garner, before being cast in his legendary role on TV's "Marverick", is fine in his scenes with Brando and Miiko Taka shows great restraint in her initial characterization as an anti-American. While I've read there were some changes from James Michener's novel, I can't imagine director Josha Logan, who had previously adopted another Michener work into the Broadway musical "South Pacific" and would eventually make that into a movie as well, not staying true to the original source. He certainly provided some inspiration with the ending scenes that made the heartbreaking earlier tragedy in the film a somewhat necessary plot twist. Some of the production numbers may have made the movie a little longish but otherwise, Sayonara was wonderful educational experience about the '50s mores that permeated America and Japan at the time. | positive |
A very interesting documentary - certainly a lot more than Sideways, a pseudo wino drama - where the capitalist conspiracy is revealed in all its greed. According to the documentary - and confirmed by the recent publication of a biography on Parker - only two men dictate the nature of wines in the world: Robert Parker of Massachussets and Michel Rolland, a French wine industry expert based in Bordeaux and also known as a "flying winemaker". The director is clever enough to insert interviews of local wine producers from many different regions of France, from Sicily to Argentina and interviews of the biggest players in the industry such as the Mondavi family to uncover the wraps on the globalization of wine making and marketing. A must see for anyone interested in the dark side of the industry. Drinking a glass of wine will not be the same political and commercial act after watching this well made documentray. | positive |
Chop Shop. Written and directed by Ramin Bahrani ( Man Push Cart). Bahrani specializes in character driven studies in naturalist style films about the sort of little people that get passed by every day, without anyone ever really noticing they are there, in New York. <br /><br />These are people who have been pushed to the very fringe of society. They exist in a sort of grey world, many of them migrants whose legal status in America is appears somewhat doubtful. Where do they come from ? How did they get there ? How do they cope ? Where will they end up ? These are not feel good stories as such, but stories about survival at its most basic, day to day level. <br /><br />Ale is one such street kid. He has no education and hustles anyway he can, to save money, he is also not beyond turning to petty theft. Mostly he is anxious to be reunited with his older sister. We see him in the early scenes ringing a safe house looking for her, but not having any real success. A young friend, Carlos gets him a job in a chop shop, in the shadows of Shea baseball stadium. Eventually his older sister comes to live on site with him, but he is jealous of the motives of her friends and suspicious of how she makes extra money. He dreams of buying a food van and setting up a vending business with his older sister. <br /><br />Bahrani shoots all his films on location. There is nothing glossy or glossed over about them. This is life as these people have to live it, in the raw. lt is not pretty although it is never ominous, and the slightly despairing air that hangs over much of the film, is the same one that hangs over these peoples' everyday lives.<br /><br />The script is also very natural and the characters are given plenty of scope and room to work in. Polanco is outstanding in the lead role, and Gonzalez gives solid support as the older sister. | positive |
As a fan of the old Doctor Who, and after the mediocre Fox movie, I was dubious of this new series of Doctor Who. I gave it a chance though, and am so glad I did.<br /><br />Yes, some episodes aren't as brilliant as others, but they are all enjoyable, and yes, Eccleston's Doctor is far from any we've had before but... Eccleston's Doctor is just about the best there is. His performance is at times comical, at others dramatic, sometimes completely crazy but always fantastic.<br /><br />This, and Bille Piper as Rose make this series a cut above the rest (Camille Coduri is also fantastic as Rose's mum), and there is a depth to this series not present previously. This series is incredibly powerful, especially considering its Sci-Fi. I mean who'd have thought you could ever have felt sorry or even cried for a Dalek prior to this, how many times in this series' history have we had moments like those with Rose's dad, the Emergency Doctor and the 'You were fantastic...so was I' final speech? I advise anyone, whether a fan of Doctor Who or even TV drama to buy this set on DVD, it truly is "Fantastic!".<br /><br />Now only 4 episodes through the latest series (and looking forward to the new Cybermen) I have to say that David Tennant's Doctor is just not as good, of course you may disagree, but I don't think his Doctor is capable of those emotional moments seen in the previous series. I also have to say that in my opinion so far this series has not been as good as the last, however the return of Sarah Jane & K9 was a fantastic episode, a true gem. Not to say this series is not good, just not quite AS good.<br /><br />So whether you like it or not, and whether you prefer Tennant or Eccleston, The Doctor is back, and he's here to stay. "Fantastic!" - Almost as many "Fantastic!"'s as The Doctor! - | positive |
What begins as a fairly clever farce about a somewhat shady security monitoring company turns, almost instantaneously, into an uninteresting and completely inane murder mystery. David Arquette and the great Stanley Tucci try mightily to make this train wreck watchable, but some things are just not humanly possible.<br /><br />What, for instance, causes Gale to turn suddenly from a sweet motherly figure into a drunken shrew at Tommy's parents house? Why would Heinrich, although admittedly a sleezebag, want to destroy the business to which he devotes his life, by robbing and possibly murdering his customers? Why does the seemingly sensible Tommy believe that Heinrich could be a murderer (based almost entirely on a dream), and even if that were believable, why wouldn't he go to the police? And why didn't Gale activate the alarm when she got home, especially after scolding Howie about it being off? Of course, all of these events are necessary for the plot (and I use the term very, very loosely) to unfold. And it might be forgivable if it resulted in even the slightest bit of comedy. But everything, from Howie's description of his date rape, to the coroner's misidentification of Gale, to the final "joke" about Gale and Howie still being dead, is more tasteless and pathetic than anything else.<br /><br />I checked the box indicating that my comments contained "spoilers", but there's nothing more I or anyone else could do to spoil this thing that already stinks to high heaven. | negative |
I wandered into Blockbuster with a friend the other night having decided that we were too broke and too lazy to do active. She decided she wanted to watch Closer, which seemed like such a repellant idea that I had to rent another film for once she'd gone to bed. Looking around I didn't see much that interested me, but saw The Doll Master in the new releases section. Just based on the cover sleeve (A woman with a doll-like face crying tears of blood) I thought this would be interesting enough to rent.<br /><br />As for the film itself, watching it in an almost empty house, with all the lights turned off it was pretty scary. I must admit I've always had a bit of a phobia of dolls since I was a kid (and watched an awful film called Asylum, one of the stories in it involved a mental patient creating a doll which killed people. Lame, but scary at the time) and the first three quarters of this film really hit the spot for me. The first half hour in particular was awesome. The creepy foreboding atmosphere really set the scene well, and without moving the dolls seemed genuinely threatening. But unfortunately as soon as they did start to move it all got a bit cheesy, I was a bit disappointed when moments that could have been genuinely frightening made me laugh because of the way they were filmed.<br /><br />As for the characters, it's a horror film, you're not really expecting anything memorable. I found I remembered names and faces better than most Asian horror films I've seen, which suggests there must have been some hidden character development that I didn't consciously notice. The typical stereotypes are out in force in this movie each one having some kind of character quirk that sets them apart from the others, from shy and quiet Yeong-ha and her doll Damien, to the outgoing bimbo Seon-yeong.<br /><br />The plot itself was fairly cool, even though the ending, which bought together many of the loose strands of plot, seemed a bit confused and didn't really do anything for me, although it did have a couple of really cool plot-twists that I won't ruin here. The basic plot is a bunch of kids are invited to be modelled as dolls by a famous reclusive old doll maker, they have to stay in the creepy house (adorned with scary dolls, some big some small) and things start to happen as our heroine Hae-mi starts to explore areas of the house and things start happening to the other inhabitants.<br /><br />Overall, I would definitely recommend the film, not to watch with too many people as some of the moments would probably make you laugh if surrounded by friends, but as something too watch on your own in the dark, with the windows and doors open just a bit, just in case any dolls feel like watching with you. It really does leave you guessing for most of the film, allowing you to go off on wild conspiracy theories only to completely destroy them later on. If you really get into it and ignore it's cheesiness in places I can guarantee you'll check under your bed before you go to sleep and maybe even leave the lights on.<br /><br />Or maybe that's just me :P As for Closer, it was OK but I preferred this. | positive |
The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.<br /><br />Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.<br /><br />Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all. | negative |
This film is outstanding and wonderfully scored. Prince's Oscar for music was richly deserved (many people don't know he won one). I think this is one of the best films to watch as a couple late at night on DVD. A great surprise: Prince does a fine job acting, and is pretty good at conveying pain on camera. Morris Day, Wendy, and Lisa are good in their supporting roles. Very cool landmark film. | positive |
I don't think I will include any spoilers but If I do, I can cover my butt. "The Last American Virgin" came in a time were such teenage coming of age/high school sex romps were the rave. Films such as "Prepies" (1984), "Hot Times" (1974) and the popular "Porky's " (1981) were making mucho money. Yet it is the "Last American Virgin" the one that actually has a more serious plot story amidst the nudity and sexual situations. It is the often told tale of three high school buddies who want to lose their virginity. The go to the wrong places (prostitutes), the dangerous ones (older woman with jealous boyfriend) and the convenient ones (luring their high school female counterparts). The movie has a lot of funny moments, and although the cast did not produce a single major movie star, it is worth remembering for a fantastic 80's soundtrack that includes: Devo, The Cars, Journey and others. By today standards is raunchy and might have grabbed a NC-17 rating, but is a well told story of how sometimes personal fixation can only bring pain,while love might be right in front of us. It is a little piece of 80s Americana and worth having in your movie collection. | positive |
A noted cinematic phenomenon of the late eighties and early nineties was the number of Oscars which went to actors playing characters who were either physically or mentally handicapped. The first was Marlee Matlin's award for "Children of a Lesser God" in 1986, and the next ten years were to see another "Best Actress" award (Holly Hunter for "The Piano" in 1994) and no fewer than five "Best Actor" awards (Dustin Hoffman in 1988 for "Rain Man", Daniel Day-Lewis in 1989 for "My Left Foot", Al Pacino in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman", Tom Hanks in 1994 for "Forrest Gump" and Geoffrey Rush in 1996 for "Shine") for portrayals of the disabled. Matlin, who played a deaf woman, is herself deaf, but all the others are able-bodied. <br /><br />This phenomenon aroused some adverse comment at the time, with suggestions being made that these awards were given more for political correctness than for the quality of the acting. When Jodie Foster failed to win "Best Actress" for "Nell" in 1994 some people saw this as evidence of a backlash against this sort of portrayal. My view, however, is that the majority of these awards were well deserved. I thought the 1992 award should have gone to either Clint Eastwood or Robert Downey rather than Pacino, but apart from that the only one with which I disagreed would have been Hanks', and that was because I preferred Nigel Hawthorne's performance in "The Madness of King George". In that film, of course, Hawthorne played a character who was mentally ill. <br /><br />"My Left Foot" was based upon the autobiography of the Irish writer and painter Christy Brown. Brown was born in 1931, one of the thirteen children of a working-class Dublin family. He was born with cerebral palsy and was at first wrongly thought to be mentally handicapped as well. He was for a long time incapable of deliberate movement or speech, but eventually discovered that he could control the movements of one part of his body, his left foot (hence the title). He learned to write and draw by holding a piece of chalk between his toes, and went on to become a painter and a published novelist and poet. <br /><br />Life in working-class Dublin in the thirties and forties could be hard, and the city Jim Sheridan (himself a Dubliner) shows us here is in many ways a grim, grey, cheerless place, very different from our normal idea of the "Emerald Isle". (Sheridan and Day-Lewis were later to collaborate on another film with an Irish theme, "In the Name of the Father"). Against this, however, must be set the cheerfulness and spirit of its people, especially the Brown family. Much of Christy's success was due to the support he received from his parents, who refused to allow him to be institutionalised and always believed in the intelligence hidden beneath a crippled exterior, and from his siblings. We see how his brothers used to wheel him round in a specially-made cart and how they helped their bricklayer father to build Christy a room of his own in their back yard. <br /><br />The film could easily have slid into sentimentality and ended up as just another heart-warming "triumph over adversity" movie. That it does not is due to a number of factors, principally the magnificent acting. In the course of his career, Day-Lewis has given a number of fine performances, but this, together with the recent "There Will Be Blood", is his best. He is never less than 100% convincing as Christie; his tortured, jerky movements and strained attempts at speech persuade us that we really are watching a disabled person, even though, intellectually, we are well aware that Day-Lewis is able-bodied. The other performances which stand out are from Fiona Shaw as his mentor Dr Eileen Cole, from Hugh O'Conor as the young Christy and from Brenda Fricker as Christy's mother (which won her the "Best Supporting Actress" award). <br /><br />The other reason why the film escapes sentimentality is that it does not try to sentimentalise its main character. Christy Brown had a difficult life, but he could also be difficult to live with, and the film gives us a "warts and all" portrait. He was a heavy drinker, given to foul language and prone to outbursts of rage. He could also be selfish and manipulative of those around him, and the film shows us all these aspects of his character. Of course, it also shows us the positive aspects- his courage, his determination and his wicked sense of humour. Day-Lewis's acting is not just physically convincing, in that it persuades us to believe in his character's disability, but also emotionally and intellectually convincing, in that it brings out all these different facets of Christy's character. His Oscar was won in the teeth of some very strong opposition from the likes of Robin Williams and Kenneth Branagh, but it was well deserved. 8/10 | positive |
This is a pretty decent example of film noir. The setting is the early 50's with the Communists trying to steal weapon secrets from the US Government.<br /><br />Richard Widmark is the suave pickpocket without scruples. He gives a pretty decent performance but there is nothing A-List about him. The interesting thing was that he was not only an anti-hero but through most of the film, an unlikeable anti-hero. That is not very normal. Jean Peters gave a so-so performance as the hooker with the heart of gold. That great character actress Thelma Ritter shines as the stool-pigeon.<br /><br />The plot had its fair share of twists and turns, wisecracks and tough talk. There is a fight scene near the end of the movie (in the subway station) that was pretty gritty and exciting.<br /><br />I think noir fans (like myself) will enjoy this film. For non-noir viewers, it may seem a little dated and the whole Commie thing a tad overdone. | positive |
I really liked this film - not so much for the story (which was okay, but was a bit slow-moving in spots) but moreso for the incredibly beautiful scenery of Greece and the Greek isles! Susan Sarandon is utterly engaging as the carefree love interest of John Cassavetes - a man "on the edge". But the scenery! Oh oh oh! | positive |
OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish. | negative |
I never figured out what the attraction of Karen Black was. She always had those beady eyes and kind of an odd look about her. She seemed to often be eccentric or cast as the "other" woman. In this one, she is the psychic adviser and expert on the occult to a crummy producer of bad commercials as he learns astral projection. He is a mean sucker, even without the new baggage. Apparently this is the avenue to immortality, because if you get good at it, you can inhabit the bodies of future generations. I believe Star Trek had a plot like this with Jack the Ripper hanging on for several centuries. Anyway, this guy is really dangerous. He has a nice family and makes them miserable. He begins to murder friends, just because they have an unkind comment for them, or he doesn't like them. You can see the ending coming from the back row in left field. It's a very harsh, humorless movie. Most of it must be taken as truth. Why are some called but few chosen? I found it long and not very satisfying. | negative |
Cuba Gooding Jr. is a secret service agent who blames himself over the assassination of the U.S. President, i'll point out straight away that this is not the type of role that this very talented actor is noted for, and this film shows us why. He teams up with a persistent news reporter (Angie Harmon) to uncover the conspiracy surrounding the president's death, and so on, blah, blah, blah.<br /><br />Even with a cast of James Woods, Cuba Gooding Jr, Anne Archer and Angie Harmon 'End Game' fails to grab your attention, plain and simple; some of the action is good, the acting isn't all bad and the story although clichéd and done before could have lead to an entertaining and enjoyable movie - WELL IT DOESN'T! The writing of the script and the direction makes absolutely sure of that, at no point does it suck you into the story or make you give the slightest thought to any of the characters.<br /><br />4/10 It's Boring, Predictable and Dull. | negative |
Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.<br /><br />When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.<br /><br />"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.<br /><br />As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.<br /><br />Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment. | negative |
To be clear from the get go, 'The Bagman' is very, very, very bad. It suffers terribly in almost every aspect except for one: the finished product is such an awful film that it's actually hysterically funny to watch. This is a very low-grade film. Budget constraints for the film should be obvious to anyone who watches even just the opening title sequence. I'm not sure if much of the humour in the film was intended or not. For example, the movie takes place in 'Doomsville.' Note to all prospective home buyers: if the town you're moving to is called 'Doomsville,' keep moving. Stephanie Beaton is quick to pull off her top for a pretty enthusiastic sex scene in the kitchen. I couldn't help but laugh because it has intentional humour (she turns on the gas stove ... get it? The sex is THAT hot? get it?) and unintentional humour. The unintentional in this case is the music. It's like the theme music for 'Chariots of Fire' goes Electronica. Break out the computer and the synthesizers! I realize that coming up with music for a small production like this is cost prohibitive. I really feel for them because the work here is so well-intentioned. The problem is that cheap music isn't necessarily good music. I haven't laughed so hard at sex on screen since 'Alone in the Dark' with that 'Seven Seconds' song (I guess they were implying that poor old Mr. Slater was a bit ... quick on the draw?). Even the end credits are hilarious. Intentional or not? You be the judge: a pet dog and cat are part of the credited cast -- and an animal wrangler was on set for them! -- The boom is credited to 'Mr B. Stick,' and the 3rd Unit's wardrobe (Yep, they had a third unit) is credited to K-mart. Maybe it's just me, but I think the hilarity of this more than saves the film. The movie is very, very bad, but the goals of Stephanie Beaton, her friends and family are so well-intentioned in 'The Bagman' that you can't help but like the movie they've produced. 'The Bagman' is bad but not dreadful. In its own sweet way, it even manages to be a bit endearing. It wears its flaws so honestly that you can't help but forgive them. "Better" films that try to hide the flaws are almost worse in a way. I guess this is just a film that knew who its audience was and was produced accordingly.<br /><br />Watch any number of movies and most of them will probably be a lot better than this. Some of them might look cheaper, or have worse acting, or sillier production value. They may not suffer terribly as 'The Bagman' does from awful editing, sound, and foley effects. Mr B. Stick didn't do a very good job. The special effects look to be where most of the money went. They tend to be more funny than gruesome, although when the 'Bagman' is finally unmasked at the end, the make-up job there is surprisingly well done.<br /><br />My 4 out of 10 is a little high but the humour helped a lot. This is an ideal movie to track down some night with a few friends and a few beers in hand. Great entertainment is to be had by anyone who seriously considers themselves B-movie or low budget film aficionados. All others should probably avoid with great prejudice. | negative |
I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah. | negative |
I'm guessing that the folks talking up this drivel are cronies of the director or something. This is bad, and not in the Michael Jackson song kind of way. To compare the pacing of this movie to the progress of a snail would be to insult the snail. This movie limps along for what seems like an eternity, all to introduce us to some un-scary zombie kids with silly makeup and some sort of vendetta, or thirst for blood, or whatever. Believe me, you won't care. The thought alone that Mom would move her two daughters into this dilapidated and FILTHY home is absurd. And worse, I found myself simply not caring. Backstory about the zombie kids? Snore. Endangerment of Mom and/or daughters? Don't care.<br /><br />In short, WOW was this dull. Don't bother. | negative |
*Contains some spoilers* This movie is cheesy 80s horror in all its awfulness. The plot takes way too long to get off the ground, never steadies itself, and then just plain crashes about 40 minutes into the film. There are a few gem moments for zombie fans, but not nearly enough zombies to create a real sense of terror.<br /><br />The zombies also take a long time to make their appearance. First, there's a whole half of a movie about mobs and prison gangs. The hero of the movie is an ex-Vietnam vet who gets caught up in the mob. The main mob boss sets him up and he goes to jail. In this jail, they are experimenting on the prisoners to find a way to cure them of homicidal tendencies and criminal behavior. But the badie psychotic head scientist/military guy has other plans in mind. He wants to use a slightly different version of the serum to make ....da da da.... super soldiers! After some infected prisoners kill a few guards and most of the prison has a round of infected communion wine, the military/crazy scientist guy goes "hey this might be a problem" and gives a call to the genius scientist turned investigative journalist hot babe ultra-empowered independent woman character, who of course invented the original serum. She goes to the prison to see what's going down, the military guy calls in a few SWAT teams from his secure position outside the prison, and the hero guy takes charge of the few prisoners with a heart of gold when a riot breaks out. The hero guy and the scientist/journalist lady team up to find a cure, save the warden's kids, and deal with some irate prisoners, both infected and not. Meanwhile, the mob boss guy has made a deal to get into the prison so that he can save his imprisoned brother. The military gets ready to blow the place up, and everyone inside scrambles to find a way out.<br /><br />There are a lot of gory scenes where people are killed by being pressed or pulled through prison bars. There's also a creepy decapitation scene and electrocution scene involving the same infected rasta prisoner. Still, the most disturbing scene is in the early part of the film, when a gross corrupt guard rapes a prisoner.<br /><br />The main highlight of this film is one scene towards the end. The hero, woman, and kids are trying to make their way to the only escape route. Their path leads them to a long hallway, on one side there is a wall and on the other are prison bars. Hundreds of bloody zombie hands reach through, gracing their hair and faces as they pass by. There's also a few good scenes of the classic "couple of zombies munching on freshly dead bodies" and "many zombies ripping one guy to shreds" bits.<br /><br />Overall, worth watching if you're researching the zombie genre as it has so many zombie clichés worth noting; it's practically an instruction manual on what not to do when making a zombie movie. But if you're new to zombie flicks and want a real scare, you should look elsewhere. | 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.