review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Not knowing a great deal about the Truth and Reconciliation commission, I can only look at this as a piece of entertainment. I started watching it too late in the evening (recorded from BBC2 earlier this year) but once I'd started I had to watch to the end.<br /><br />The down-side is that it's effectively a courtroom drama - never my favourite genre - but it's stunningly photographed (largely in super-saturated ochres) and well acted. Like a good novel, I couldn't put it down. All the way through, I wished I was watching it in a cinema to do the music and photography justice. What happened to its release in theatres? I'm an admirer of Chiwetel Ejiofor since I saw him in Dirty Pretty Things, and Hilary Swank looks terrific in this - very female and sexy for a change (possibly out of place, but she adds to the visual attractiveness of the film).<br /><br />This picture deserves a wider audience than it seems to be getting. | positive |
People forget that there have been several King Kong ripoffs- Congo, King Kong Vs. Godzilla, King Kong (1976), they all ripoff one another, but YETI stands on its own. It only borrows one element from King Kong and that is the animal's attraction with one female.<br /><br />The YETI myth is based on Bigfoot (not like King Kong)and archeologists have been fascinated it, at one time they did exist,but there is no scientific data to prove it.<br /><br />This movie is hard to find ,but its worth watching it. The first time I watched it was on "Elvira's Mistress of the Dark Shows" in the early 1980's. It sent chills down my spine as a kid, especially when the YETI got mad. I saw it again, around 1:00am on ABC about 2 to 3yrs ago. Seeing it again made me appreciate it more, it has some overall good effects (for its time) and the story involves a mute boy and his dog, and an evil businessman person who wants to kill the YETI for his own purposes. Also the music is pretty cool,its very YETI like. :-)<br /><br />Gianfranco Parolini and the Yetians creates a great monster like atmosphere.<br /><br />Vote 7 and half out of 10. | positive |
What is so taboo about love?! People seem to have major problems with the transgenered.<br /><br />The title of this movie didn't catch my eye. It was a grainy shot about 4 minutes into the movie is what made me stop channel surfing. I could not believe how freaking amazing this film was. It touches on so many levels of human emotion that it did not once fail to move me in some way. It is by far one of the best independent films I have ever seen. I did not view these characters as either gender, just human. I would recommend it to anyone who loves movies. Especially independent films. Praise to all fearless filmmakers! | positive |
Before launching into whether this film is worth your time or not, I should inform you I've never seen another adaptation of Carmen, so if you're looking for a review on how it ranks amongst others, this might not be of much use to you.<br /><br />The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.<br /><br />Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jordà), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper Mérimée, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across José (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets José, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, José is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can José hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him? <br /><br />It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that José might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.<br /><br />The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling Mérimée's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).<br /><br />First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as José. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or José was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.<br /><br />However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.<br /><br />The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jordà, and done so badly, so much that it would leave Mérimée turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of José's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.<br /><br />The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.<br /><br />To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega! | negative |
This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film "gave" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of "Sodom" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible. | negative |
As a big fan of the original film, it's hard to watch this show. The garish set decor and harshly lighted sets rob any style from this remake. The mood is never there. Instead, it has the look and feel of so many television movies of the Seventies. Crenna is not a bad choice as Walter Neff, but his snappy wardrobe and "swank" apartment don't fit the mood of the original, or make him an interesting character.He does his best to make it work but Samantha Egger is a really bad choice. The English accent and California looks can't hold a candle to Barbara Stanwick's velvet voice and sex appeal. Lee J.Cobb tries mightily to fashion Barton Keyes,but even his performance is just gruff, without style.<br /><br />It feels like the TV movie it was and again reminds me of what a remarkable film the original still is. | negative |
I bought this movie because of Raquel Welch. She was gorgeous in this film as she played the role of Harry (Mike Wagner) girl friend. Harry a robber down on his luck trying to make one more heist. Harry goes to a funeral where he meets Vittorio De Sica and takes him for a ride. When things don't work out on the ride they put there mines together to figure out the fastest way to get money. Harry and his gang decide with the help of Vittorio De Sica to from there on mob. Rest a sure that no matter what the gang goes after that the outcome is never the same and will keep you on the edge of your sit. The rest of the out come you need to watch for yourself. As far as Raquel goes if you're a fan of here then you need to watch this movie because she never looked better standing on the beach with a ****** on. I give this movie 10 weasel stars on Raquel Welch body alone. It's no wonder why she was the hottest actress back in the sixties. She was the sex symbol everyone one wanted and no one could get. Not only does she look good, she can act even better. If you like, Raquel Welch then you'll like this movie | positive |
It's hard to know what was going through Per Kristensen and Morten Lindberg's heads when they wrote "Gayniggers from Outer Space" - the movie is billed as a comedy, yet there are no real jokes beside the crude character names (Capt. B. Dick, Sgt. Shaved Balls). The rest of the movie is a (presumably) unintentionally funny affair with ridiculously unsynchronised voice-overs (with the 'actors' basically reading their lines with no hint of feeling), 'futuristic' computer displays filled with spelling mistakes, and a plot that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Even though 65% of viewers have given this movie a perfect 10 out of 10, this is the complete opposite of what a good film is. It may be ENTERTAINING to watch with some friends, but this film only deserves about a '2' out of ten...slightly higher than the lower possible rating only because of the sheer fact that the writers somehow managed to get some black guys to star in this movie. | negative |
"Purgatory Flats", shown on cable recently, is a small movie that packs a lot. Harris Done directs with style. The screen play by Mr. Done and Diane Fine makes a good thriller.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the film, perhaps you would like to stop reading.<br /><br />The film is the story about a young L.A. doctor that made a mistake and lives to pay for it. Upon being released from prison he wants to hide in a small town where he feels he will be forgotten. Bad choice! What Thomas Reed finds in Purgatory Flats is hell in the desert. Right after landing a job as a bar tender, Thomas meets a pretty young woman, Sunny, who, clearly is someone to stay away from. The young doctor is called to help as Sunny's boyfriend Randy, is gunned down by a drug dealer.<br /><br />We get to know Randy's family. His uncle Dean appears to be OK, but his brother Owen is a loose cannon. Every one in the household is connected in more ways than one to the nubile Sunny.<br /><br />The performances are fine. Vincent Ventresca is Thomas, the man who should have gone to his L.A. practice instead of making a detour to the small town. Alexandra Holden is Sunny, a young woman with a tremendous ambition to escape her surroundings. Kevin Alejandro, Gregg Henry, Brian Austin play the men in the Mecklin family well. Nicholas Turturro makes also a good contribution as the drug dealer.<br /><br />The film shows a director with promise who will go far judging from this tightly constructed film. | positive |
Tu pa tam is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But on the other hand is better then most of the movies from Slovenia, who are filled with depressing characters and story without any bright ideas. Tu pa tam is bright, optimistic and without any artistic moments. In many interviews director Mitja Okorn tried to tell us that his movie is top quality just because it didn't cost a lot of money. But thinking that way is wrong. Tu pa tam is for me very bad movie. The dialogs are really bad written (90% of the script is consisted of cursing), the characters are stereotypical morons, the story and its twists are very predictable and the action sequences (this movie supposed to be an action comedy) are filmed very very bad and without any style. Okorn is just thinking he's even bigger than Quentin Tarantino, so he's copying his style over all 90 minutes. The humor in the movie is very cheap and primitive (Okorn probably thinks that constant cursing is funny). In my opinion is Tu pa tam very cheap (not only by budget)movie with stupid story and very very bad acting. | negative |
I watched this with great trepidation, and my trepidation was well founded, it seems. What was this movie about? Knight? The season? The Players? What? It was all over the place all the time. It had no tension (sorry, we all knew Bobby was going to curse and throw things) but Brian Denehy, a fine actor, comes across as mailing in the anger and delivering zero tension. Cheaply shot, like a MacGiver episode. Contrast this Thanksgiving main course with the job HBO did on the Don King movie "only in America" to show how to do sports biopics, warts and all. Notice that ESPN promoted the hell out of it and then never showed it again? | negative |
This movie tries its darndest to capture that classic bad canadian movie feel:<br /><br />"quirky" and obnoxious characters (a few); "quirky" town with "quirky" folk; a "quirky" coffee shop or restaurant (coffee shop here); lots of shots of canadian stuff for postcards (ocean stuff here); lots of mention of "gotta get out of this town"; downright booooring.<br /><br />And it succeeds on all counts.<br /><br />Something to note, though. I couldn't figure out whether this movie was just trying to be post-Northern Exposure "quirky" comedy or something surreal like a drug-induced or psychotic hallucination. The editing of this movie jumped around nonsensically from one unrelated thing to another with zero pacing or motivation. Not to mention the fact that half the time we didn't even know where we were jumping. Take for instance, the very opening shots, of yelling teens in a car. Who are they and what the h--- did they have to do with anything? And this sub - uh - plot (use that word plot loosely) concering kids that seem to span generations. I don't think they actually do, but the editing makes it look like they materialize from flashback, all of a sudden, to current time. Huh? What did I miss?<br /><br />Avoid. Unless for laughs. Or you want to try and trip out on the inept editing. | negative |
"Capt. Corelli's Mandolin" is an old fashioned Hollywood war romance but with sex and nudity, and supposedly no Americans. The story takes place on a Greek island during WW2. The Italians arrive to take over the island, but with German supervision. There is a romantic triangle made up of a Greek couple and the Italian captain. Nice performances by all the actors; Penelope Cruz's best work yet. | positive |
I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).<br /><br />There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW. | positive |
Cactus Flower is what I call a "pizza movie" -A personal favorite that never fails to satisfy. Perfect for an evening at home with a pizza. Knowing all the lines (and what lines!) by heart only enhances the enjoyment.<br /><br />Since so many others here have retold the plot, I'll simply add the correction that Bergman's character, Miss Dickinson, was a nurse-receptionist, meaning she was a skilled nurse -and therefore an educated person -not "just" a receptionist.<br /><br />Bergman's performance in this film -and the film itself- was largely dismissed at the time, but today's audiences will marvel at her range; not just the impeccable comic timing, but the ability to make us believe her character is unaware of her own feelings while revealing them so clearly to Toni and to us. While the general plot stretches credibility, Bergman's performance is compelling: honest and utterly believable.<br /><br />Also a standout is Jack Weston's performance as the Matthau's old friend and co-conspirator, Harvey. No one could deliver a zinger like Weston, and I.A.L. Diamond's script gives him plenty. For example: "That's such a big, dirty, rotten lie it has class." Weston excelled at slightly seedy characters because he exuded a warmth that allowed you to forgive his characters' flaws. <br /><br />The film is a fairly straight adaptation of the Abe Burrows play (which was itself adapted from a French play by Barillet and Gredy). On Broadway Matthau's role was played by Barry Nelson. Bergman's by Lauren Bacall, and Hawn's by Brenda Vaccaro. It ran for 1,234 performances (three years) and was nominated for two Tony Awards (Vaccaro and Burt Brinckerhoff, who played Igor).<br /><br />For me, the film's score, written and adapted by the legendary Quincy Jones is another highlight. The main theme (A Time For Love Is Anytime) is performed by Sarah Vaughn over the opening and closing credits. It is also insinuated in different arrangements throughout the film, most notably as the romantic piano music underscoring Berman's speech to Hawn in the record store. Jones also created covers of popular songs from the period (To Sir With Love, I'm A Believer) for the night club scenes. As with all of the film's elements, there is a tremendous amount of talent, taste, and professionalism evident. <br /><br />In my opinion, few modern romantic comedies can hold a candle to this classic. It's great to finally have it available on DVD. Time to call for a pizza... | positive |
First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....<br /><br />Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time. | negative |
I don't think the world was ready for this film. I know I wasn't. I'd been expected a standard low-budget schlock exploitation potboiler. Instead, I got the most intelligent reworking of Shakespeare since Peter Greenaway's "Prospero's Books". This should become the definitive film version of Romeo And Juliet. It won't of course. But that's the world's loss. | positive |
The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.<br /><br />The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.<br /><br />The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.<br /><br />The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion. | negative |
Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.<br /><br />This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much. | negative |
I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.<br /><br />It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.<br /><br />The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere. <br /><br />It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine. | negative |
I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene. <br /><br />The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.<br /><br />I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.<br /><br />Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing. <br /><br /> | negative |
I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. <br /><br />I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead. | negative |
I went to see this movie to kill some time. I remember Cole Hauser in "Tigerland", and although his acting is wooden, he does portray a tough "leader" character. Same here. This movie was about a bunch of young, hot scientists and divers exploring a cave in Romania that one has to dive to see. The beginning scene was very interesting, with a bunch of Romanian or Russian men exploring the cave in search of booty. Flash forward 30 years, and we have a team of divers called in by some scientist and his crew to explore some cave for some unknown scientific purpose. <br /><br />There is a lot of clichéd, useless talk. The women are too hot for their jobs, let's face it. I hate to watch the lips of these women talk about the guys while drinking beer at the pre-cave exploration party. I mean it was like we were at some bar with frat and sorority types talking about the opposite sex--not a group of scientists and divers. Every character had ZERO personality, with perhaps exception of the scientist, who at least wasn't one of the young and beautiful people. So, the acting, although workmanlike, was not inspiring. <br /><br />The dialog was pretty bad. At one point in the movie, Cole Hauser ("Jack"), the lead diver--his irises morph into the Cingular wireless symbol, and stay like that. We are led to believe that, since he was scratched by one of these monsters, that he is turning into one of them. Fair enough. But first of all, nobody says the obvious thing to him: "What is up with your EYES, dude??" No. Everybody just talked about how he's "changed" and that he should not be the leader of the group anymore. And then this guy says, "you see how he's not HUMAN". Huh? If they really believed he was a friggin' monster, then why not act like it? Instead, the group splits in two--those who go with Jack, and those who go their separate ways, I guess thinking him to be a monster. It makes no sense.<br /><br />The best scene in the movie was this blonde diver woman crawls up a cave wall, and gets attacked by this goblin. Her scream really sucked--but she fought like hell to dispatch the goblin.<br /><br />The photography was fine when the camera was STILL. But any action sequences, the director found it useful to confuse the hell out of us by flashing bubbles, flashlights, dark space, god knows what. I wish they would just show us a scene straight once in awhile. Just because you move the camera all over the place doesn't make the movie any SCARIER, folks. <br /><br />This movie could have been a lot better if the following changes had been made:<br /><br />1. every actor was replaced by someone who looked real. Let Cole Hauser be the lead, it's OK to let him be the good-looking one. I'm getting tired of seeing 20-something supermodel scientists. Give me a break, people!<br /><br />2. The cinematographer was fired, and replaced by one who just pointed the camera and sat still. This could be the director's fault, I don't know. Jumpy camera (as in Constant Gardener) is getting old, folks.<br /><br />3. We got to see the goblins actually devour the people. How bout some gore? There's not much else in this movie. We barely got to see the creatures--I felt a little ripped off about that. <br /><br />4. The ending was pretty lame. During the denouement, the sexy British scientist has a secret...guess what that is? It's a bit canned. The ending would have been better if they all died instead of the Black guy (Morris Chestnut), who seemed to breathe a little sympathy into his character just by his worried expressions. All the other actors had NO expression.<br /><br />I gave it a 4 out of 10, because after all, the acting was without noticeable errors, and the concept was fairly original. I'd like to see Cole do more military roles--he's good at it. | negative |
This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful. | negative |
In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters". To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2" for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.<br /><br />Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.<br /><br />While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.<br /><br />Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero". In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ("We're out of ammunition" to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional "men with a bit of paint on their faces" option. <br /><br />The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal. <br /><br />It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous "flying zombie head" scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring. | negative |
One would have expected Hitchcock's return to major studio filmmaking to err on the side of chastened caution. Surely few expected his most riotous, unrestrained film, a gleeful melange of vicious black comedy, exciting suspense, mocking manipulation, and astonishing flights of fancy. But that is precisely what they got: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.<br /><br />What is remarkable is how much Bruno's transgression disrupts the world of the film. Much has been made of the masterly crosscutting motif, but its immediate effect is to completely obstruct the straight line of progress Guy is making of his life, and hence the society he represents or is eager to join. Guy is the archetypal American, the working-class boy made good, moving in influential circles, athletic, successful, handsome. Bruno is his destructive opposite, gay, decadent, 'European' (he lives off his father, in a Big House, and just lounges about dreaming of murder). Bruno's life is one of repetition, circularity, whereas Guy moves straight ahead. It is Bruno's achievement to move Guy into his realm (represented by the merry-go-round) and force HIM to transgress (break the law, hope for murder (Bruno's)).<br /><br />Bruno is quite literally fighting patriarchy. All the authority figures in the film are criticised - Bruno's father, a man whose brutality we get a glimpse of, but the true horror of which is constantly alluded to in the film (especially in Aunt Clara's paintings - that incredibly intense negative energy must come from somewhere); Anna's incredibly Machiavellian, self-serving father; the insensitive judge who thinks nothing of lunching after an execution; the tennis commentator whose smugly authorative comments are always mistaken. Far from being the mother-hater of legend, Hitch, as Robin Wood perceived, is deeply hostile to fathers and patriarchy.<br /><br />Bruno's transgression turns the world topsy-turvy. This is Hitch's most surreal film. Whenever Guy is in his plot, he is filmed straight, with conventionally romantic music. But whenever Bruno intrudes, the atmosphere becomes carnivalesque, bizarre, much more fun. This is Hitch's first truly American film, revelling in the primitive detritus of Americana. Grown men puncture little boys' balloons, or try to throw them off merry-go-rounds. Distinguished professors of mathematics sing about goats on trains. Elderly society matrons are strangled at elegant soirees. Washington is filmed like a series of spare lines in a vast desert under a huge sky, like a haunting Dali painting. There is one of the greatest, and funniest, scenes in all cinema when we see a motionless, smiling Bruno in a sea of turning heads at a tennis match, an image worthy of Magritte. Just look at any scene with Bruno in it, and watch it derail into the bizarre.<br /><br />Phalluses abound in the most ridiculous permutations - check all those balloons (Hitch had obviously just seen THE THIRD MAN) - as well as in more staid environs: Washington will never look the same again. STRANGERS is also, VERTIGO notwithstanding, Hitch's most overtly sexual film - as well as the phalluses, there is the sustained homoeroticism, the remarkable play with 'riding' horses; the gobsmacking fellatio joke when Hitch's daughter spills powder over the policeman.<br /><br />And yet Hitch doesn't stint on good old suspense. In the very proper endeavour to show what a great artist he was, critics tend to overlook what made him famous in the first place. Much has been made of Bruno as a prototype of Norman Bates, and Hitch plays merry havoc on audience identification, willing Bruno into murder. There is a hilariously painful sequence where Bruno loses the lighter with which he intends to frame Guy down a drain. The gasps of tension and sighs of relief on the part of the audience I was a part of in support of an insane murderer is inherently funny, slightly disturbing, and highly revealing about our true reactions to conformity and success. And Hitch milks it with callous glee - listen to the mocking music and exagerrated compositions, and kick yourself for taking it all so seriously.<br /><br />STRANGERS is one of Hitch's five best films, and therefore one of the greatest things in cinema. The dialogue is so strange and brilliant, I can't believe it wasn't written by Chandler. Patricia Hitchcock is a wonderful imp, standing in for her cheeky father as she taunts Guy. The fairground finale is a remarkable, dizzying fusion of exciting, tense set-piece, black comedy and symbolic site. If Bruno's final words condemn him to hell (according to the Catholic precepts Hitch is supposed to embody: compare with a similar ending in THE KILLERS), we applaud his integrity, infinitely preferable to Guy's debased serving of self. | positive |
This one is bad. A really bad and boring crime movie that has nothing out of the ordinary in it. A series of crimes, the killer that you do not see throughout the whole movie, the classic investigations. And also the classic tale about a cop who figures out what's going on and isn't believed by anyone, so he has to fight by himself to reveal the truth. Not too much in this one. Vote: 4 out of 10. | negative |
Leland Fitzgerald (Ryan Gosling) is sent to jail for the murder of an autistic kid. When pressured with the question 'Why?' he doesn't have an answer. While in jail he meets Pearl (Don Cheadle), his teacher, who decides to take matters into his own hands and helps Leland figure out why he did it. Throughout this film we learn all about Leland's troubled life, including his ex-girlfriend Becky(Jena Malone), his famous father Albert(Kevin Spacey)and his whole sad life. <br /><br />This film is Matthew Ryan Hoge's second movie, and it is spectacular in nearly everyway. This is one movie which will leave you thinking in the end, and wondering about how it all works. The movie is quite dark, but if you can handle that then you will realize just how good a film it is.<br /><br />In this movie, there is no bad guy. There is no one you can blame for anything that happens. There's no stereotyping, and the audience does not try to prove Leland guilty. Instead, we sit back, relax, and watch this boy's life unfold throughout the corse of the movie. All the problems depicted in the story are very real. Drug addiction, parental expectations, overwhelming sadness; they all exist in our world.<br /><br />Ryan Gosling gives one of the greatest performances of his career in this movie, as the depressed teenager Leland. His father lives in Europe and doesn't really care much about his son. The only person he loves is Becky, but she has problems of her own. He knows exactly what he did, but as he says in the film, 'You want a why, but maybe there isn't one. Maybe this is something that just happened.' There is a why, but we don't find out about it until the end. As you watch the movie, the audience finds themselves amazed that such a young person could know so much about the world. Leland notices things that people tend to ignore. <br /><br />A particular thought-provoking scene which really affected me was during one of Leland's conversations with Pearl. Pearl just cheated on his wife and when Leland asks why, Pearl replies that he's only human. Then Leland says something which never really occurs to anyone: "Why do people only say that when they've done something wrong?"<br /><br />Another fantastic acting job was provided by Chris Klein. In the film he plays Allen Harris, the boyfriend of Becky's sister Julie (Michelle Williams). Although he is not one of the main characters, I found myself amazed at how deep his character was. You can relate to Allen a lot. You know how much he cares for the Pollard family. It's as if they were his own flesh and blood. By the end of the movie, you realize just how far he would go to help them. <br /><br />Overall, this movie is a masterpiece which has been overlooked by quite a few people. If, however, you take the time to watch it, you will most likely see that everything I've mentioned above is true. And once you're finished watching it, you'll never look at the world the same way again.<br /><br />9.5/10 | positive |
This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things. | negative |
It was sad that COMMITTED lasted only two weeks in Dallas theaters. I thought this movie had a lot going for it. The script was funny, full of subtle emotional shifts, and it had a good message. The acting was great. Everyone did a superb job, especially with the script's subtleties. Heather Graham not only has beautiful eyes, she has *expressive* eyes. For that matter, all the actors were attractive! Why it didn't do well in its theatrical release, I don't know--other than the studio didn't seem to have much of a push behind it. But it deserved to do better, and I hope it does well on video. It's certainly one of my favorites for the first half of 2000. | positive |
People, please don't bother to watch this movie! This movie is bad! It's totally waste of time. I don't see any point here. It's a Stupid film with lousy plot and the acting is poor. I rather get myself beaten than watch this movie ever again. | negative |
The first half hour of "Homegrown" was rather boring and not absorbing, but as the film progressed, so did my interest in the characters and the plot. Several scenes are really scary and you fear for the main characters who you actually grow attached to. The story is about three hired hands on a hidden illegal marijuana farm in southern California. They witness the murder of the farm's owner, Malcolm (John Lithgow), and they take over the weed for their own. The three rather simple-minded farm hands soon get swept up into a scary world of mafia and local interest, while all of the time trying to convince everyone that Malcolm is still alive. While the movie had several faults and a slow beginning, it turned out to be worthwhile. 7/10 stars. | positive |
HLOTS was an outstanding series, its what NYPD Blue will never be, on HLOTS the plots are real, the dialog is real, the Relationships are real. With HLOTS back as a movie, Tying up all the loose ends, it was good to have all the gang back together, even a few that passed away show up (wont say how) The storyline was fast paced, emotional and full of the spirit the series had week in and week out. Homicide , Life on the Streets, Network drama at Its BEST!!!! 5 STARS!!!! Thumbs UP and all That. Thanks NBC for giving us the Finally we didn't get! | positive |
THE BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller "Button, Button" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems that's right Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films. | negative |
The Regard of Flight, written and performed by Bill Irwin, is a true classic theatre piece which translated quite well to the small screen. Full of quick and sparkling dialog and some of the best physical comedy of the decade, it is head and shoulders above 99% of "Comedy" as it is presented today. I am sure it will one day take its rightful place with such great shows as "The Fantastiks", and "Waiting for Godot." Why it isn't available on DVD yet is a mystery and a tragedy. | positive |
One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous "special effects" and "makeup" to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it. | negative |
I just wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the the movie "New Jersey Drive" was my personal favorite off alltime. I admire the work Nick Gomez and Spike Lee put into this masterpiece of a movie. This movie made quite an impression on me because of its realness and its appreciation of detail of life in urban New Jersey. It struck a chord with me, personally, because I grew up with friends like those depicted in the movie. It further made an impression with me because I used to spend time in Teaneck several years ago, so some of the characters were kept "real". At times, this movie seemed like a documentary because you didn't know whether or not these were real events taking place. Although movies like "Boys in the Hood" and "Menace II Society" grab more attention, I personally feel these movies were somewhat "enhanced" to appeal to a broader audience. "New Jersey Drive" was an uncompromising piece of "in your face" reality. Lee and Gomez covered every detail in this urban drama from the music, clothing, slang, and location.Unlike some of the movies I mentioned earlier, the actors performed as if they weren't "actors". Nothing was compromised in order to make good "theater". The only misfortune to come from this movie was the fact that many people "slept" on it. I look forward to more works of art from Nick and Spike in the hopefully near future. | positive |
The only explanation I can muster as to why this film isn't widely distributed is because it hits too close to home for some. This movie was a genuine happy surprise, the satire is genius. This film turns the lights on in the dark that is organized religion and big media, and the roaches scurry for cover. Rent the DVD and watch it for yourself if you haven't yet, this film succeeds where many have failed (Dogma comes to mind) to poke it's nose under the tent, both by using humor and very clever analogies coupled with telling backdrops and locations. Can't comment in depth without revealing some significant spoilers, there are some surprises in this film which even the seasoned film buff will be caught off guard by. | positive |
It is real easy to toast, roast, flay, and otherwise burn this film for all of its abundant flaws. It was made by high school students and faculty and a whole community; it shows! Sure, I could examine the script which is just ridiculous. A monster created from the garbage of a growing Californian city starts eating garbage and taking garbage cans all over the city. Soon this huge beast with wings no less begins to destroy buildings and even plays the "beauty and the beast" act with a young high school girl. Fortunately for her there is a gang of guys, her former boyfriend nicknamed "The Penguin," and the town drunk out to help her. The direction is awful, the production values just dreadful, the acting non-existent, and the pace sluggish. The movie is hard to sit through - period. However, that being said, it is also a miracle of a film when you consider that this thing was crafted by an entire community. You can see all the collective effort from the actors, the actual mayor and actual firemen and policemen, to the area location shots used. I also was really amazed at all the local businesses credited at the film's end with helping to finance or contribute in some way to the film. When you look at the film from that perspective, it is indeed quite an achievement. I didn't know anything about it before I sat down and watched it. Now that I have found out something about it, I am impressed. But make no mistake - I have no...NO...desire to sit through it again. | negative |
After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister! | positive |
This is truly a documentary of love about a fascinating character, her outlook on life and her extended family. The filmmakers spent three years taping Sister Helen at her halfway house and managed to capture so much wonderful material that you can not help but feel you know Sister Helen and her "boys." The house holds 21 recovering addicts each with a story almost as involving as Sister Helen's. The ending scenes are particularly involving and emotional.<br /><br />Sister Helen's story of marriage, addiction and loss reveals a very complex character who's tough love is at all times funny, touching and endearing.<br /><br />The film is a amazing in the way it tells its story in wonderful slice of life sequences which develop into a story that is almost as clear as if each scene were scripted and acted by the best. The honesty (and obvious dishonesty) of the "clients" is very involving as you learn of their fears and watch their attempts to grow.<br /><br />You will never forget Sister Helen, Robert, Moe or poor Ashish(spelling?). | positive |
An intriguing premise of hand-drawn fantasy come to life in a child's fever dreams. However, I imagine the average nonfictional child is far more adept at scaring themselves than Bernard Rose is at riveting the viewer. The duel between Anna's two realities drags on far too long to sustain interest, especially considering that the little girl playing her is the most abrasive child actor I've ever seen.<br /><br />Use only for kindling. | negative |
The worst movie ever?? HARDLY!!! This is one of the BEST animated movies i have ever seen! It has appearances from all the great characters from the animated tv series Rainbow Brite. Very safe for small children and the colors capture their attention like no other! There is an evil Princess trying to steal the diamond planet Spectra, which would in turn cause all life on Earth to cease. This tells the tale of how Rainbow Brite and her new friend Krys are able to stop the Princess' evil plot and restore life and color back to Earth. It's proof that kids can make a difference! Rainbow Brite will live on forever. | positive |
This was a highly-hyped movie prior to its release, but turned out to be a dud. I never talked to one person who ever liked this movie. I agree: I didn't like it, either. Perhaps one big reason it wasn't a box office success was that it had nothing but unappealing characters in the story.<br /><br />For awhile there - I don't know if this is still true - I hadn't any movie in which Laura Linney or Dylan Walsh played anything BUT annoying characters.<br /><br />That, and a stupid story, make this film a big disappointment, especially considering that big buildup. Did the filmmakers, with dialog this dumb, really think this was going to be a hit? | negative |
This movie is based on the true story of Christopher Boyce and his friend Daunton Lee. This fascinating story takes place around the time of the Whitlam Dismissal, in which during his time as a clerk for TRW, Christopher was privy to classified correspondence which admitted the CIA's involvement in Australian political and union circles. The movie shows several scenes involving Gough Whitlam (transmitted over US TV), where events take place which confirm the classified documents that Christopher had read previously. The removal of Gough Whitlam was an organized CIA coup. Elsewhere in the film, it was mentioned that most people have no idea about the level of deception that goes on, ultimately to ensure that the US is used as a vehicle to promote certain policies at the behest of everyone else. In the current age, nothing has changed.<br /><br />Christopher's life was profoundly affected, read shocked, by his knowledge of what and how the CIA shapes foreign democracies, including the democracies of allied nations to the United States. Christopher reacted, probably not in the best way at the time, by selling top secret information to the Soviet Union with Daunton Lee acting as his exchange. Eventually Christopher and Daunton were captured and convicted of treason.<br /><br />On 23rd May 1982, whilst serving time in US prison, Christopher Boyce agreed to a one and only interview with Ray Martin of 60 Minutes Australia because it was the Australian connection that profoundly affected him. It caused a furore in the Australian media for about a week, then it went hushed.<br /><br />I liked the movie's symbolism of the falcon, and in it Chris was called the Falcon, and Daunton the Snowman (drug connection), but in reality the title "Falcon" was not something that was used by Chris.<br /><br />Christopher Boyce: Criminal or Man of Conscience? You decide.<br /><br />Resources: http://www.playitforwardoz.com/boyce.html | positive |
I saw this film in Wales in July. It deals with the courage of Czech pilots who flew numerous missions for the RAF after their country had been occupied by the Nazis. In this film, the action takes place both in the early 1950's when these pilots are being beaten in political prisons in Czeckoslavakia and during World War II in Britain. They were imprisoned after their return to their homeland because the Communist regime viewed these warriors as a threat to their occupation of Czeckoslavakia. The pilots maintain their dignity in prison and during numerous air battles against Nazi pilots. This film contain a love sub-plot that does make sense because it helps us to understand that both civilians and soldiers made great sacrifices to preserve democracy. The end of this film indicates that the heroism of these Czech pilots was finally recognized in the early 1990's after the restoration of democracy in the country then known as Czeckoslavakia. This powerful and moving film was made with financial support from the Czech government. I highly recommend this film. | positive |
This is a totally awesome movie! If you haven't seen it yet, you damn well should. Sure, the plot is slow to develop, the special effects are laughable, the acting is ridiculous and the action is badly choreographed, but as wrestler DDP would say; That's not a bad thing....that's a good thing! Everything about this movie is hilarious, especially if you get the dubbed version, which has even worse actors. It's countless laughs until you get to the end, yearning for the sequel, where the mummy fights wrestling women. Thus, I give it ten stars. Unless you're one of those 'discriminating' and 'intelligent' people with good taste, who likes only 'high quality' films of the highest calibre, I recommend this utterly monkeydellic movie! | positive |
When I heard about "Hammerhead" being released on DVD and finally found it at my local DVD store, I thought "well, just another cheap monster movie from Nu Image". Those guys around Boaz Davidson and Avi Lerner produced cheap but very entertaining B - Pictures in the past few months but also some very disappointing movies. So I didn't expect much, especially after having watched the rather disappointing "Shark Zone" just a few days before. But "Hammerhead" turned out to be an excellent revival of the 1950s monster movies. We have a mad scientist, a group of people in a dangerous situation, screaming women and damsels in distress, man-eating plants and of course we have the creature, a huge mutant mix between a man and a hammerhead shark. Everything you need for an entertaining monster movie. The only thing missing are graphic sex scenes and nudity which you expect in movies of this kind, but since the movie was made for TV it's understandable why these scenes are missing. And it doesn't matter anyway cause "Hammerhead" is action and horror entertainment at it's best. There are two reasons why I gave it seven out of ten points, though: First of all, the monster isn't seen very often and the showdown with the destruction of the creature is too fast and poorly done, and secondly, William Forsythe just isn't the right guy for the "hero" part and for falling in love with gorgeous Hunter Tylo. Other than that, I can highly recommend this movie for any monster movie fan out there. Grab yourselves a cool drink and some popcorn, watch this movie and have fun. Jasper P. Morgan | positive |
First half of the movie scared the hell out of me and normally I'm not easy to scare, but second half of this thriller didn't work quite a well, but still very scary! A good thriller, than use simple ways to make good horror. Lowbudget, set in Russia, unknown cast, and made in Europe. but still great fun, and yes there is a few laughs throw in for good matters as well! | positive |
After 21 movies and three years of working in Hollywood Bette Davis finally got a role she claimed as her own and which put her as a force to be reckoned with. As Mildred Rogers, Davis burst forth with a completely unsympathetic role of a slutty waitress who becomes the target of Leslie Howard's affections, and already eager to sink her teeth into a role like this, she had no qualms of the awful things her character was meant to do throughout the course of the film and the awful transformation she would undergo. It also has been widely noted that her performance here, one of the few things that makes this slightly uneven movie watchable, has been the one to remember even after two remakes and the scenes where she rips into Howard have made cinema history.<br /><br />At circa 85 minutes, the story moves at a nice pace, telling the story of Philip Carey (Howard) as his life crosses that of the destructive Mildred Rogers over and over again.<br /><br />Howard and Davis' chemistry is all but non-existent -- Davis sustained in an interview much later in life she personally didn't care much for Howard's iciness towards her and that helped her act even worse (in character) towards him as Mildred. All the same, the two seem awkward with one another; their scenes together remain stiff, only salvaged by the ferocious acidity Davis brings to her lines and her own nervous presence. Then again, Cromwell's direction has a certain stiltedness about itself that fails to come through at times -- he tries to fill in some space (whenever Davis is not there) with dissolves and montages indicating the passing of time (a calendar superimposed over a changing Frances Dee). All much in the style back then. This was before technicalities and complicated camera angles came into being, and in essence, the visual story is a simplified, bare essentials translation of the Somerset Maugham's novel -- which is saying a lot, since at 600 pages, "Of Human Bondage" would have been indeed hard to film even then.<br /><br />Storywise, it feels that Philip Carey may be something of a glutton for punishment, since there is no discernible, sexual attraction between he and Mildred and to compound that, Mildred never hides her displeasure from the get-go. Howard's performance never seems to go through much external emotion -- his eyes are constantly sad, his expression never veers too far away from lost (he could almost be a distant cousin to William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist" -- dejected, hurt, and absolutely passive), but this is possibly a part of his character and the reason he fails to see that other women (played by Kay Johnson and Frances Dee) are making themselves vulnerable to unrequited affections. Interestingly, Johnson's Norah, once she realizes Carey will never fall for her, is the one who sums the story up with her observation that people are bound to other people -- she is bound to Carey as Carey is bound to Mildred, and Mildred herself is bound to Miller (or men who fit the role of provider). In her short but memorable scene, she's the one who holds the essence of the story's moral. | positive |
Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.<br /><br />This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from "Under Tuscan Sun" and "Unfaithful", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.<br /><br />Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.<br /><br />Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate. | negative |
Sebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.<br /><br />Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.<br /><br />I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer. | negative |
I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.<br /><br />The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about. | negative |
If you wish to have a truly traumatic experience, than this awful motion picture (if you may consider to call it that) is for you. A film worse than the postman,sizzle Beach U.S.A, Batman and Robin, Kazaam,fair game...well you get my point.This film directed by French television sensation Patrick Sebastien (Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 25) can truly be considered the worst film ever made. I do hope that Troma or someone in America would distribute it, so that the u.s.a can experience the French stench at it's worth. | negative |
A brilliant and sensitive movie with interwoven plot lines. As a general warning, the movie turns quite dark about half way through. As sudden as it is, this is a change that I found fitting to the themes of the movie, particularly the comparison of the Ishkanani to the filthy rich, and (as is said by Finn at the end) how each person makes up the tribe, and how the whole tribe is reflected in each person.<br /><br />Anton Yelchin (Finn Earl) is spectacular in this movie. He is probably best known as Chekov from Star Trek or Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation, but he's been in a whole plethora of movies you've probably never heard of (Alpha Dog, which is another brilliant performance on Yelchin's part, House of D, Hearts in Atlantis, to name a few...) The point is that this kid really takes this movie and makes it his own. Other excellent performances from Diane Lane and Donald Sutherland are what takes this movie up a notch, from great to excellent. | positive |
My mother took me to see this film as a child and I long to see it every year as I do all of my other Christmas favorites. What I remember most was the silly Devil and Santa looking through his telescope. I waited and looked through the T.V. Guide each year after that to see when it would be shown. I would usually find it playing on a Saturday afternoon. I only found the movie in English which took something special away from the film and have longed to find a copy of it in Spanish. I hold this film dear to my heart and have never suffered from nightmares as others might suggest. Yes, it is a different film about Santa Claus and that is what makes it special and unique. I can't wait to get a copy of this film and watch it with my children as I explain to them my favorite parts and memories!! | positive |
Although the movie takes place at an "Ivy League" college, it was in fact shot entirely in Northern Arizona, mostly at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff in the fall of 1976. I was involved in the theater department there, and most of the extras in the film are then-members of the theater department. <br /><br />There is an absolutely ludicrous scene in this film (if you know your Arizona geography) that shows several cast members riding bikes from the college to a creek. We NAU'ers know that the campus and said creek (Actually Oak Creek Canyon) are about 35 miles apart, and while the trip there is all downhill, it would be literally IMPOSSIBLE to ride a bike back UP that same road! | negative |
Emory is a Cincinatti steel worker like his father before him and for most of the 20th century the twin pillars of his family's existence have been the steel mill and the union. The mill, which once employed 45,000, has seen its numbers dwindle to 5,000 recently and now 1, as the plant just shut its doors, leaving a single security guard. At first, newly-unemployed Emory and his pals enjoy their independence, hanging out around town and carousing at their favorite bar, where they down "depth charges" with reckless abandon. They think the mill will reopen after listening to their union rep's optimistic spiel, but reality starts to sink in when they find themselves selling their personal vehicles in a struggle to put food on the table and stave off foreclosure of their homes. Emory's father - a dedicated union man - is sure the plant will reopen and recalls for his son all the short-lived closures during his own 35 years at the mill. Meanwhile, some of the unemployed men take demeaning make-work jobs or hop in their trucks and take off in a desperate search for employment. <br /><br />Finally the union admits its helplessness, as Emory explains to his stubborn father that times have changed and that the mill won't ever open again. Emory tearfully asks "What did I do wrong?" as a lifetime of hard work and devotion to job, union, church and family have left him with nothing and nowhere to turn. He hits rock bottom when in a drunken rage he manhandles his young sons and knocks his wife to the floor. Tossed out of his own home and stinging from the plant manager's comments that he and his men didn't work hard enough to justify their substantial paychecks, Emory recruits the steel workers still left in town to do something that will demonstrate to all what they are capable of. Early in the morning they break into the mill, fire up the furnaces and work harder than they ever have in their lives, producing in one shift enough high-quality steel pipes to fill the loading docks from wall to wall, top to bottom - something the plant manager thought was impossible. <br /><br />Arriving at the suddenly-reopened plant, the stupefied manager looks around him at the tremendous output that came from a single day's work, realizing that production like this could make the plant profitable again. The manager asks Emory: "Can you do this every day?" Emory is forced to nod "No" and the manager asks: "Then what were you trying to prove?" Emory explains that the workers' decades of hard work, honesty and devotion to their jobs had meaning and that by showing how much they could produce in one day "We just spit in your eye." Emory bids a tearful farewell to his wife and kids as he takes off with his buddies to look for work down south, promising to relocate the family when he finds it. <br /><br />This is a powerful and honest treatment of the plight of American workers displaced by foreign competition and gives a realistic view of the costs they bear for the short-sightedness of concession-demanding unions and greedy plant owners who extracted every penny they could from their factories but never gave back by modernizing them. Peter Strauss as Emory, John Goodman as his best friend, Gary Cole as his college-boy brother, Pamela Reed as Emory's sympathetic wife and John Doucette as his dying father all turn in excellent performances in this fine picture. | positive |
I will admit I possibly missed tiny moments when I wasn't paying proper attention, but I got enough of the story to agree that it is a great family film, from director Lionel Jefferies, who played Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Basically it starts with a happy upper-middle class family living in Victorian London. One night the Father (Iain Cuthbertson) is visited by two strangers, and he leaves with them, and does not return. They move to a cottage in the country, and here the children; Bobbie (Jenny Agutter, who I first saw in Child's Play 2), Phyllis (Sally Thomsett) and Peter (Gary Warren) keep their spirits up, with their fascination for the nearby railroad. Everyday they wave faithfully to the passengers in the passing trains, and with courage and vigilance they also avoid an accident and are made heroes. Their kindness makes them friends, including important people who can help find the mystery of their missing father. Also starring Dinah Sheridan as Mother/Mrs. Waterbury, Bernard Cribbins as Albert Perks, William Mervyn as Old Gentleman, Peter Bromilow as Doctor Forrest, Ann Lancaster as Ruth and Gordon Whiting as Russian. It was number 29 on The 100 Greatest Family Films, and it was number 24 on The 50 Greatest British Films. Very good! | positive |
All you need is great house, a babysitter and a phone. Simon West directs this thrilling and chilling remake of the 1979 original. This version is more of a thriller than a horror flick. Emotionally tense with an escalating fear factor. Jill Johnson(Camilla Belle)needs to work off an excessive cell phone bill; she takes on the task of babysitting the two children of Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis(Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant). The house is a beautiful 1970ish wood and glass masterpiece. Secluded and peaceful. The kids are already in bed, the wind builds and is joined by down-pouring rain. The phone begins ringing, ringing, ringing. The babysitter is soon in a frantic mode of survival in fear of the creepy stranger on the other end of the phone.<br /><br />Belle is great as the innocent, smart and strong teen babysitter. The voice of the stranger on the phone is that of Lance Henriksen, while the physical stranger is played by Tommy Flanagan. Also featured are: Katie Cassidy and Brian Geraghty. Kudos to James Dooley for the atmospheric original music. | positive |
Whenever a Columbo story deviates from the familiar plot (colorful killer commits crime, Columbo smokes out killer, Columbo becomes a pest in the process), the writers somehow are never able to match the quality and interest of most traditional episodes. This episode deviates in the extreme, and the result is a major flop.<br /><br /> Would you believe: Columbo never faces the villain till the very end?!!<br /><br />Frankly, I was tempted to turn it off about two-thirds through.<br /><br /> Oh, the sacrifices we self-appointed reviewers make!!! | negative |
I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing "Final Justice" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.<br /><br />First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words "Venantino Venantini"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.<br /><br />Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)<br /><br />Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of "Son of a--" and the "deja vu" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.<br /><br />One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because "they see that uniform, they won't cooperate." However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...<br /><br />One final observation on the original, uncut version of "Final Justice": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen? | negative |
This was a disgrace to the game FarCry i had much expectations but all ended up in a nightmare. Besides the bad acting the visual effects, stunts the plot even the humor used in the movie was an absolute flop. The movie is not worth watching at all. The funniest part was when the girl comes and kiss Jack in order to give him the key to the cuffs. Guess the she got the keys to handcuffs all the time. I hope some good director will make a remake of this fantastic game into a movie someday. And I they will invest some good cash to get the visual effects right and the scenaries right as well as the ACTING right. But till then don't waste time by trying to watch this movie because it will surely make you go mad specially if you are a FarCry lover. | negative |
First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that! | negative |
I really liked this quirky movie. The characters are not the bland beautiful people that show up in so many movies and on TV. It has a realistic edge, with a captivating story line. The main title sequence alone makes this movie fun to watch. | negative |
what the hell was the point of this dull movie? it looked pretty interesting in the beginning but quickly fell flat on its face. its supposed to be based on a true story but for crying out loud is there no more script writers left in Hollywood? man iv'e seen these guys in some of the best movies ever made,defoe can play just about anything and when i see he's in a movie i don't have a problem renting it but I'm starting to wonder.redford also a great actor is also slipping; perhaps their hard up or just losing their senses. the dialog was long and terribly heavy eyed,especially at home with the family.i wonder if the actors thought they had a hit going here? perhaps...uh..an Oscar? | negative |
Being a huge fan of the Japanese singers Gackt and Hyde, I was terribly excited when I found out that they had made a film together and made it my mission in life to see it. I was not disappointed. In fact, this film greatly exceeded my expectations. Knowing that both Gackt and Hyde are singers rather than actors, I was prepared for brave yet not really that fulfilling performances, but am delighted to say that both of them managed to keep me captivated and believing the story as it went on. Moon Child has just the right amount of humour, action, romance and serious, heart-wrenching moments. I can't say that I've ever cried more at a film and these more tender moments are admirably acted by the pair, in my opinion, definitely proving their skills as actors. The fight scenes are absolutely stunning and although there are a few moments of uncertainty to begin with, you are quick to get into the movie and begin to bond with the characters. I thoroughly recommend this film to anyone, especially those who are fans of Gackt and Hyde. | positive |
I am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment. | negative |
The director has no clue. I know ... That is the obvious comment. Maybe, we should delve into the story ... the relationships ... how about the quality of the actors?<br /><br />The story is ... well, idiotic would be a simple yet honest answer.<br /><br />The actors are ... they tried very hard. Can they be faulted for the director's choices?<br /><br />All I can say is ...<br /><br />Why was this made? <br /><br />Well, isn't this an embarrassment to the Korean-American film industry? <br /><br />Should we be selective about who we support? <br /><br />Am I being too harsh? Check it out for yourself. | negative |
"House Of Evil" aka "Dance Of Death" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibánez. Unlike "Snake People" (1971), "The Incredible Invasion" (also 1971) and "The Fear Chamber" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, "House Of Evil" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. "House Of Evil" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer "The Fear Chamber" and "House Of Evil" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.<br /><br />The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.<br /><br />I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors "Snake People" and "The Fear Chamber", the female lead is once again played by Julissa. <br /><br />Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. "House Of Evil" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10 | negative |
In August Days/Dies d'agost Marc Recha has given us a sun-saturated Catalan documentary-style road movie that's mostly a meandering improvised meditation on brotherhood and reclaiming the dead. The beautiful sometimes large-scale, richly atmospheric 35 mm. landscape images, nice soundtrack and Catalan-language narration are enchanting as a mood piece, if one is content with a trajectory that hasn't much momentum and doesn't lead anywhere in particular. Filmmaker Marc Recha and his non-identical twin David are the stars and the narrative is voiced by their younger sister. Marc had been researching the life of Ramon Barnils (1940-2001), a socialist editor who had been a family friend. He felt he was saturated with information and had to take a break. The break turned into making this film, which seeks to capture the mood of the interviews with Barnils' associates, thoughts about the Spanish Civil War, the drought season they were experiencing, the rugged landscape, the Recha brothers' affection for each other, swims and suntanned nudity and whatever characters or stories they ran into as they camped out of their van. This leads to pursuit of a giant catfish and the temporary disappearance of one of the brothers. In the end David has to go back to Barcelona to be with his daughter and Marc has to return to his project, and there it ends. I found it fascinating to listen to an extended narration in the Catalan language with its blend of Spanish and French-sounding words (perhaps linked with Provençal?). This isn't a major film but it commands attention and makes sense as a film festival choice with its clean visual and auditory beauty and its way of playing around with genres and blending autobiography with fiction and documentary in a fresh and thought-provoking way.<br /><br />An official selection of the 2006 New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center. | positive |
A good story, well-acted with unexpected character twists eg. vicious murderous gangster Bryan Brown teaching his son macrame. Although it succeeds as an action drama where you hope the good guy (Ledger) and his gilrfriend succeed, it also has some hilarious ironic black humour eg. the bank robbers who become radio competition "winners" and their reaction, the busker's revenge etc. Well worth watching. | positive |
Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad! | negative |
I totally agree with the review by a reviewer of Variety that the film is never quite as funny, lively or insightful about the creative process as its premise would seem to warrant. Narratively it is messy and the lighting is really problematic. If the film is supposed to be character-driven the poor lighting doesn't enhance the acting and it is sometimes difficult to observe the facial expressions of the actors. Many non-South Africans will have difficulty in following the spoken English in the film and some of the local humor will be lost in the process. I watched the film at the Cape Town World Cinema festival last year. Comments and reactions to the film ranged from unwatchable and sloppy to a welcome departure from the films about our painful past. Unfortunately Bunny Chow won't be remembered as one of the bright lights of the South African New Wave, but some of the remarkable films about our apartheid history will indeed be rated among our best in our 110 year old film history. Not surprisingly the film disappeared from cinemas in Cape Town only two weeks after its release and from most of the cinemas in Durban and Gauteng. It has clearly limited appeal among South African audiences. | negative |
I love the movie. It brought me back to the best time of my life. <br /><br />We need that time again, now more than ever. For me it was a time of freedom, learning, and finding myself. I will always miss it. There will never be another time like the 60's, unfortunately. | positive |
How can anyone argue the fact that Urban Cowboy was, and still is, the best document of Texas life for the time period. Consider the following: men beat their wives, get drunk at bars nightly, get married to settle a fight, commit adultery, and compete on mechanical bulls. Try and name a movie that depicts real life so vividly. They dont make them anymore. It seems current films are always about people with lots of money, they live in huge homes, drive expensive cars and don't work. This movie has a celebration scene about getting a trailer for pete's sake !<br /><br />Anyway, I watch it at least once a week. No kidding. I have dissected this movie from end to end. feel free to email me to learn more about my reason for calling it a documentary. Consider the following scenes: Bud sees Sissy - they are split up - he amicably honks and waves, she flips him the bird - he returns half the peace sign honking his horn to add impact then tears off.<br /><br />Buds mom calls him approx. 18 hours after he gets into town, on a Sunday, to see if he has a job yet - all he has accomplished is getting drunk and laid(x2), with help from his uncle and aunt who cover for him.<br /><br />"You all live like pigs" Think about why this scene is needed. Think about it. Was it necessary ? Could we not figure it out without showing the filthy sink ? God I love that !<br /><br />Sissy allows Wes to help her ride the bull. Only a few days (or possibly the next day) after Wes just kicked the crap out of her husband. Steve asks - Hey Sissy, remember Wes ? Oh yeah, didnt you beat my husband up the other night, so let's get this lesson goin', to make no mention of the fact that she seeks solace in him later during one Bud and Sissy's many fights, which by the way all take place in public - in Gilley's !<br /><br />The Wedding reception picture taking session (oh the humanity !) could they at least arrange or move the chairs out of the way. "My legs are sweatin' momma"<br /><br />In conclusion, you don't put scenes like this in a movie to try and show insight into human psychology. It is a documentary of real life.<br /><br />I only wish there was a director's cut.... | positive |
First, this was a BRAVE film. I've seen Irreversible and can understand the comparisons. However, I cannot begin to understand the people who've trashed this film. I can see how the end may have come off extreme but I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished that every guy who's ever forced a woman into sex deserved exactly what Jared got. Conversely, it didn't solve anything or make anything better and the fact that the film doesn't pretend to is what made me appreciate it.<br /><br />The comment prior to this one called the film pathetic and claimed no adult would stick with. I certainly did and intently. I'm 24 years old. The way the film drags made it realistic to me. People have become so used to eye candy and fast paced plots on screen that if you ask them to concentrate too long on one brick in the foundation of a film, not only do they lose interest, they demolish whatever has been built, and call it rubbish. When in actuality it's their lack of patience and comprehension that needs fine tuning and not the product of a creative mind such as Talia Lugacy's.<br /><br />Rosario Dawson displayed the numbness of self-destruction flawlessly. I think she portrayed Maya pre and post assault with great ease and the transition between the two is an act I rarely ever see done well. Often times, much like the films "aimed at teens" mentioned in the prior comment, the effects of rape are displayed as either extremely manic and impulsive or terribly depressed, isolated and lifeless. Dawson, in my opinion, manages to perform the balancing act so many survivors fall prey to: drone-like existence in the waking hours, working some dead end job to survive (and distract) and then overindulging in vices in order to lose themselves in the haze of substance abuse rather than face what sobriety brings.<br /><br />I thought this film told the truth and I appreciated it for finally showing people a different side of rape. So many people let the end of this film devour the middle and the beginning...I believe that Maya's face during the act was the end...not the act itself...not the vengeance or the meaning behind it...just her face...<br /><br />thank you | positive |
yes i have a copy of it on VHS uncut in great condition that i transfered to DVD and if anyone one wants to bring back the memories of a Christmas classic please emil me at [email protected] searched everywhere and i found nothing on this and i thought that i cant be the only one on this planet that has this classic on tape there has to be other people and if they do i fit in with them being that very very few that has this classic so i consider myself lucky and i have all of the muppets Christmas except one that john denver did with the muppets again i thinks its called a smokey mountain holiday im not to sure but its close. | positive |
Like a very expensive Buffy episode peppered with plenty of humor. Lots of wire and stunt kung fu. The Twins Effect goes on the list of classic must see HK films. The vampires have a cool blend of hopping ghost type and the pretty boy European style. If you get the opportunity to see this one in the theatre it is worth a 30 minute drive, otherwise buy the import DVD before someone screws it up by giving it a bad dub. | positive |
Most movies from Hollywood seem to follow one of a few pre-formulated and very predictable plots. This film does not and is a perfect example of what I watch IFC for.<br /><br />There's a guy, Michael, and his girlfriend left him with out a word. He wants to know what happened. Is she OK ? Can he say goodbye ? Perhaps get some closure. He hasn't been able to contact Grace and in an effort to find her he has made a film asking for your help.<br /><br />Michael figures we might need a reason to help him, so he tells us his story by reliving his relationship with the help of a friend ( Nadia ) to play the role of Grace ( the girlfriend who left) <br /><br />Hind sight is 20/20 and it is no different for Michael. By telling his story, and getting feedback from his friends, he realizes his mistakes and just how much he values what he has lost. This is unfortunately a lesson we all have had to learn ( or need to learn ) and is easy to identify with. That is what makes you want to hear more of Michael's story and wanting to know if he finds Grace. | positive |
This oddity contains Bunuel-like touches, but doesn't sustain one's interest. A 10 year old roams a bizarro America in a stolen Mustang, while the usual cult movie suspects (Dick Miller, Mary Woronov, Susie Tyrell) commit malicious acts in the name of comedy. Like his AFTER HOURS and VAMPIRE'S KISS, the screenwriter delights in making you squirm. I remained unaffected, due to the broad acting. You know you're in for it when Meat Loaf and Flea give the most appealing perfs. (And what did this kid's screen test look like? He's insufferable.) Recommended to the dozen or so fans of SONNY BOY ('87). | negative |
Don't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.<br /><br />The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films. | negative |
Although many have mixed feelings about this latter day giallo thriller from Argento, it still stands as another lavish testament to the cinematic brilliance that is Argento.<br /><br />A young opera singer has her first break out performance and suddenly finds herself the subject of obsession for a crazed maniac.<br /><br />In a way, Opera is like a modern-day giallo take on Phantom of the Opera blended with all the glorious style and color that one would expect Dario Argento to deliver. Argento makes terrific use of inventive camera techniques, reoccurring symbols (like those ravens!), Gothic atmosphere, and truly gruesome murder sequences. One scene especially (which involves a peep hole and a gun) will knock viewers right out of their seats! Story-wise the film also manages to be gripping with some strong suspense and given great atmosphere by Claudio Simonetti's gorgeous music score.<br /><br />The cast does some satisfying performances. Cristina Marsillach is good as our leading lady. The late Ian Charleson does a nice turn as the director, as does Urbano Barberini as an investigator, Daria Nicolodi as Marsillach's agent, and William McNamara as Marsillach's ill-fated lover. <br /><br />Opera is terrific latter day Argento, and perhaps the last of his great works. It's sure to please his fans and even create some new ones.<br /><br />**** out of **** | positive |
**SPOILERS AHEAD**<br /><br />It is really unfortunate that a movie so well produced turns out to be<br /><br />such a disappointment. I thought this was full of (silly) clichés and<br /><br />that it basically tried to hard. <br /><br />To the (American) guys out there: how many of you spend your<br /><br />time jumping on your girlfriend's bed and making monkey<br /><br />sounds? To the (married) girls: how many of you have suddenly<br /><br />gone from prudes to nymphos overnight--but not with your<br /><br />husband? To the French: would you really ask about someone<br /><br />being "à la fac" when you know they don't speak French? Wouldn't<br /><br />you use a more common word like "université"? <br /><br />I lived in France for a while and I sort of do know and understand<br /><br />Europe (and I love it), but my (German) roommate and I found this<br /><br />pretty insulting overall. It looked like a movie funded by the<br /><br />European Parliament, and it tried too hard basically. It had all<br /><br />sorts of differences that it tried to tie together (not a bad thing in<br /><br />itself) but the result is at best awkward, but in fact ridiculous--too<br /><br />many clashes that wouldn't really happen. Then the end of the<br /><br />movie--the last 10 minutes--ruined all the rest. Why doesn't Xavier<br /><br />talk to the Erasmus students he meets back in Paris? Why does<br /><br />he just walk off? Why does he just run away from his job, is that<br /><br />"freedom"? And in the end, is the new Europe supposed to rest on<br /><br />a bunch of people who smoke up and shag all day? Is this what<br /><br />it's made up of? <br /><br />Besides, the acting was pretty horrible. I can't believe Judith<br /><br />Godrèche's role and acting. Why was she made to look like<br /><br />Emanuelle Béart so much? At first I thought Xavier was OK but<br /><br />with retrospect I think he was pretty bad. <br /><br />And that's all really too bad, because technically (opening credits,<br /><br />scenes when he's asking what papers he needs) it was really<br /><br />good (except for sound editing around the British siblings), and the<br /><br />soundtrack was great too. So the form was good, but the content<br /><br />pretty horrible. | positive |
The film version of 'Rising Damp' came out two years after the television series ended. Like many fans I duly went along to the cinema when it opened. I came away bitterly disappointed. Eric Chappell could not have spent very much time writing the script; most of it is rehashed ideas from old episodes. At the time of the film's release, the 'Rising Damp' series was still being repeated regularly on I.T.V. so the public was being asked to pay to see something they'd seen already. At least the 'On The Buses' movies boasted original screenplays.<br /><br />Secondly, Richard Beckinsale had died the year before, so they eliminated the character of 'Alan' as a mark of respect, substituting art student 'John', played by Christopher Strauli of 'Only When I Laugh' fame. It simply wasn't the same.<br /><br />As another poster has pointed out, Rigsby's boarding house looked nothing like the one used in the series, being bigger and altogether cleaner.<br /><br />Director Joe McGrath was one of the directors who worked on the original 'Casino Royale', a film steeped in surreal humour. 'Rising Damp' also has its share of 'Walter Mitty' style fantasy sequences, such as the 'Saturday Night Fever' parody. Personally, I found them horribly out of place. A case of 'over-egging the pudding'.<br /><br />On the plus side, Leonard Rossiter is as magnificent as ever as the seedy 'Rigsby', as are Frances De La Tour as 'Ruth' and Don Warrington as 'Philip. Its just a shame the film isn't worthy of their talents.<br /><br />When Rossiter died in 1984, it was shown by I.T.V. as a tribute, with its final scene - showing Rigsby laying prostrate at the foot of the stairs - removed in the interests of good taste. | negative |
This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.<br /><br />Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself! <br /><br />What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy. | positive |
I have just finished watching this film for the first time, and I must say that I am very impressed.<br /><br />How bleak. How full of despair. How nightmarish. Incredible.<br /><br />Visually stunning, several scenes are embedded in my mind...the first appearance of the phantom carriage...the soul of David Holm as it rises from his corpse...his spirit on his knees, pleading.<br /><br />This film takes a simple story-that of the ghostly driver of the phantom carriage, doomed to collect the souls of the dead for a year-brings it into the present setting of the film and then uses flashbacks as a means to explain how David Holm ends up in his predicament.<br /><br />I would love to see this released on DVD so that more might see it. Everyone should. | positive |
When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.<br /><br />It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.<br /><br />Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast. | negative |
A variation of the same plot line was used in a Simon & Simon episode (Thin Air) that originally aired in Dec 1982.<br /><br />The gender of the victim was changed, the surviving spouse is one of Rick's "old flames". It's also interesting to note that Gerald McRaney had a role in this Rockford file episode. <br /><br />Both episodes were based on a story by Howard Browne - as noted in the list of 'writing credits'. <br /><br />Anthony James plays one of his classic TV bad guy roles.<br /><br />The continuation of the concept between the Rockford Files to Magnum PI to Simon & Simon quite interesting. | positive |
Guest from the Future tells a fascinating story of time travel, friendship, battle of good and evil -- all with a small budget, child actors, and few special effects. Something for Spielberg and Lucas to learn from. ;) A sixth-grader Kolya "Nick" Gerasimov finds a time machine in the basement of a decrepit building and travels 100 years into the future. He discovers a near-perfect, utopian society where robots play guitars and write poetry, everyone is kind to each other and people enjoy everything technology has to offer. Alice is the daughter of a prominent scientist who invented a device called Mielophone that allows to read minds of humans and animals. The device can be put to both good and bad use, depending on whose hands it falls into. When two evil space pirates from Saturn who want to rule the universe attempt to steal Mielophone, it falls into the hands of 20th century school boy Nick. With the pirates hot on his tracks, he travels back to his time, followed by the pirates, and Alice. Chaos, confusion and funny situations follow as the luckless pirates try to blend in with the earthlings. Alice enrolls in the same school Nick goes to and demonstrates superhuman abilities in PE class. The catch is, Alice doesn't know what Nick looks like, while the pirates do. Also, the pirates are able to change their appearance and turn literally into anyone. (Hmm, I wonder if this is where James Cameron got the idea for Terminator...) Who gets to Nick -- and Mielophone -- first? Excellent plot, non-stop adventures, and great soundtrack. I wish Hollywood made kid movies like this one... | positive |
Tim Burton the man behind the original Batman film and Beetlejuice, brings the world the sequel to Batman, that exceeds the original in more ways than one. Firstly Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny De Vito are a great mix of Batmans enemies. The dark, deadly and sexy Catwoman works well to rattle some heads within the story and penguin works in the same way that the joker worked in the original. The sets are stunning and immaculate. Gotham city has so many dark alleyways that you could never know what's happening at one time or another. The only thing that gives it a bad name is its script, which at times seems to lapse and then not recover for while. Tim Burtons direction bring superhero films into a new realm. Beats all the superman films and the other Batman films by a mile. Though in terms of realisation the new Batman begins has a bite where this one lacks, but Burton is a more original director than Nolan. | positive |
This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap. <br /><br />Final Verdict <br /><br />The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his
unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life. | negative |
If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, "The Celestine Prophecy" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word "Taxi" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a "Guayabera" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a "Latin Police officer". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A "Peruvian" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called "Vicente" and not "Viciente". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing "Inca Kola", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.<br /><br />I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a "1" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull" and indescribable Disney's "The Emperor's new groove". The list of bad films could be endless... | negative |
When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found "The Mind's Eye" again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended!<br /><br />This is what it is:<br /><br />"The Mind's Eye" is a spectacular odyssey through time. Your journey begins at the dawn of creation and moves through the rise of man and technology. Travel in the world of abstraction and on into the future with breathtaking computer animation imagery.<br /><br />"The Mind's Eye" joins the imaginations of over 300 of the world's most talented computer animation artists with a powerful, original music soundtrack. This unique collaboration takes you on an incredible voyage into "The Mind's Eye." | positive |
Twin brothers separated at birth (Due to the deaths of their parents) reunite twenty five years later to avenge their parents and take back their million dollar tunnel. Double Impact runs at two hours long and basically adds no real approach to the Corsican Brothers plot and Jean-Claude Van Damme while adequate as the evil twin brother is just embarrassing as the good twin brother. Also the action sequences aren't as exciting this time and Jean-Claude relies more on gunfire then on his martial arts. Also the supporting cast is wasted and at two hours the movie is just plain dull.<br /><br />* out of 4(Bad) | negative |
While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: <br /><br />1. The Acting When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.<br /><br />2. The Ghosts The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.<br /><br />3. The Plot How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.<br /><br />4. The Convenient Priest What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.<br /><br />5. Everything Else It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.<br /><br />I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible. | negative |
I came across The Last Stop one day at a video store and they were selling it for only $2. I decided to give it a try and bought it. It was pretty good, i enjoyed it. The story is about several people all caught in a cabin somewhere in nowhere because of a raging blizzard. There is a police officer, nancy,his ex girlfriend, two brothers that just got out of jail, a older man and his lover, a black man and the couple that owns the cabins and their retarted son that never speaks. Suddenly someone is found to be murdered and a bag full of cash is found. Everyone is a suspect. The Last Stop is a pretty good thriller, i would give it 8/10 | positive |
Niñas Mal is not a movie is a bad episode of a cheesy badly conceived soap opera. <br /><br />The acting is not a bit better of that in soap operas, I guess the writer and director has seen too many Mexican soap operas and can't conceive anything remotely different. <br /><br />Give it up, go back to your soap operas so that you have an audience to please. <br /><br />Stop waisting our time and money and giving a bad name to the once respectable Mexican film industry. <br /><br />It is NOT an OK or good movie, it's a mediocre soap opera! | negative |
"Inuyasha " was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clichés. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find "Inuyasha " incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made . | negative |
I love this film and it is such a wonderful example of a family jeopardy, a romantic love story, and a very sad story plot. Everything was just so perfect and excellent about this film. It was such a great mixture of actors and actresses and with some laughs and a lot of cries this film deserves to get plenty of awards. With the mention of beautiful scenario, and although I would relate this film to The Notebook and The Family Stone, it was sort of much more cunning, sad, and brilliant than those films. The Evening tells of a love story between an old woman dreaming back to her younger years, and her two daughters stay by her side while she is not well. The story dating back is so strongly told and wonderful I was sitting on the edge of my seat. You really get to know all the characters and by the end, I was wanting to watch it all over again. This is a amazingly sad and vividly acted and plotted movie that is really one of a kind and should be seen by all for how wonderful it really is. All the performances are astonishing and the film captures your attention from the very beginning and never lets go. I loved it, and am so glad that I watched it for it was truly an astonishing film... | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.