review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
There may something poetically right in seeing dentists suffer. Suffer they do, in this dreary, truly dreadful film, but they cause the audience to undergo pain of the non-dental variety too. If you ever wanted to see a movie full of screaming kids, barfing kids, sick kids, lots of long, long meaningful glances, a deadpan wife and a concerned husband: it's all here for you. Boring, overlong, it stands out as one of those examples that scream out: why? Is there a saving grace? Yes, there is. There is a short scene from Nabucco, with some pretty good singing. Save your money, or if it's on TV or cable, save your time. You can always read a book or make an omelette. | negative |
This film is striking only in its banality and use of cliches. Sadly it was obvious throughout up until the ending. But don't be mistaken into thinking that it ended strongly. Only a little unexpectedly, though nothing worth watching the thing through for.<br /><br />From the taciturn and wronged hero, to the Germanic baddy, to the expendable team, the characters were entirely wooden and obvious. The two FBI agents Smith and Wesson (geddit?) gave some hope of humour, but that came to nothing.<br /><br />I am a big science fiction fan but it is hard to find any redeeming quality in this film. A turkey!<br /><br /> | negative |
Shia LaBeouf has impressed me before with his acting ability, but I can honestly say that I very much look forward to his next efforts...his portrayal of Francis Ouimet, a 20 year old caddy who ignores his father's insistence that golf is not his place in life and enters the 1913 US Open tournament in his hometown...the beginning of the movie does drag a bit, but it's necessary to set up the underdog subplot that Shia works so well...the entire cast is well-chosen and they work very well together in a story that, based on the actual event, has an ending everyone can discover before seeing the movie...but even knowing that information doesn't spoil the fun...Josh Flitter is delightful as Eddie Lowery, Francis' caddy, who keeps him grounded and loose while at the same time proving to be an invaluable part of Francis' effort...Stephen Delane is outstanding as Harry Vardon, the legendary British golfer who Francis idolizes yet does not fear...and who knows the background Francis comes from as he, too, had humble beginnings...Bill Paxton takes a formulaic movie and makes it worthwhile...bravo Mr. Paxton, and bravo to the cast...from the imagery to the story to the people who bring it alive, this is a movie to get, enjoy, and revel in...it's nice to have movies like this that we can feel good watching... | positive |
I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.<br /><br />I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.<br /><br />The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.<br /><br />Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.<br /><br />Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.<br /><br />This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes! <br /><br />This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!<br /><br />I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great <br /><br />Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10 | negative |
Raggedy Ann and Raggedy Andy THE MOVIE is about dolls that come to life when the humans aren't around. In this adventure they must rescue a kidnapped french doll named Babette from the captain of pirates. On their way they journey though Deep Dark Woods, Taffy Pit, and even Looney Land. Will the aide of their new friend The Camel With Wrinkled Knees help them or just slow them down with his hallucinations of his friends leaving him? How will they escape the Kookoo king and his henchmen!? What will their owner Marcella say when she sees her 7th birthday present doll gone along with her other toys? Delightful surprises await the two adventurers.<br /><br />All scores are out of a possible 10: Story: 8 - Very cute. Dolls that come to life when the master isn't around. Not just that because they go out into many many different places, but they are in an imaginary world so anything can happen. Meeting new characters, going to different places finding new friends, its great. The characters all work so well in this too and who doesn't love pirates?! Acting: 8 - Every character suits their voice so well. Specifically the Marlon Brando taffy pit enemy, The Greed. The french doll has a very uptight french accent, the evil Hitler-esquire king Kookoo (whos got hair that resembles Simpson's Sideshow Bob) plays his role very well, and the sorrow old black man voice for Camel works perfectly. Why is it that old dubbed animation was soo much better than new ones? Music: 10 - Nothing short of perfection here. The songs have been in my head for years, and re-watching it nearly 20 years later, i can still remember each and every one of them and will now be able to know exactly where these tunes come from. Joe Raposo of "Sesame Street" fame did an excellent job with the songs for this and everyone sings real well.<br /><br />Editing: 6 - Heh, this is where it'll get confusing. I mean how far did the Raggedy's walk anyway? A lot of events just seem to occur one after another and there's no telling WHO the other dolls and toys were as you never see them in the real world of the movie, but it does follow some sort of path and you know they'll eventually get to where they need to go, its just pretty hard to follow at times.<br /><br />Uniqueness: 8 - Between this and Unico i'd have to say there's parts in both movies i will never forget no matter how hard i try to. Mainly the scary parts. I've probably mentioned already how older movies were Much creepier than animation of today but this takes the cake in the scary factor. Outside of the South Park movie and some Disney films there's almost no animated musicals, or good ones of that coming out so its very unique.<br /><br />Worth: 8- Its classic. Worth the hunt to get a good copy thats for sure, but the VHS copies are probably all stretched out by now. The DVD version is sold on Ebay all the time and it'll definitely be something you'll watch more than once. If anything get it for the nostalgia purposes.<br /><br />Overall Score (Not an average): 8 - Its a wonderful timeless musical made in the late 70s and can still be enjoyed today. Its characters are all unique and the songs are great. So great you might find yourself humming them time and time again. Give your favorite stuffed animal a hug today! Reviewer's Insight (Including bias): This isn't like the Raggedy Ann TV series made a decade later. This was way more darker and real world. The effects in this seem like a lot of other acid-trip cartoons from the 70's, in particular, Yellow Submarine. Still, its given me memories I'll never forget, and might still influence things today. It wasn't easy to find but it'll remain a treasure to keep in my collection of DVDs and videos forever. | positive |
I rented this movie for about $1.50 - the most complete waste of money (and time) I have ever spent. It's LAME! I couldn't believe how they could come up with something like this.<br /><br />The plot... there is no plot. Everything you'd expect to happen, it does, only in a worse way. The acting was horrible. My dog could've done better. The special effects have no effect whatsoever - except inducing complete disbelief. And the cheesy lines.... I mean, why even bother? <br /><br />The only credit I can give this piece of sh*t are the opening scenes. They were actually quite pretty. And one of the reasons why I decided to rent this. The graphics shown there are probably the best and most realistic CG of the entire film.<br /><br />Total Reality gets 1 out of 10 for not being able to mark it lower. | negative |
Gerald (Richard Carlson) and Kitty (Veronica Hurst) have just finished celebrating their engagement announcement in France with family and friends, when he receives a letter asking him to visit an ancestral castle located in Scotland. Gerald's uncle reportedly has fallen ill and has requested Gerald, the sole heir, be present. Gerald goes off to Scotland, leaving his future bride behind. A few weeks pass and he doesn't come back. Concerned, Kitty sends out telegrams but doesn't hear back from her fiancé. Four more weeks pass and Kitty finally receives a weird response from Gerald, calling off the engagement and telling her to move on with her life. Not ready to give up on her relationship and looking for answers, Kitty hops on a plane and decides to pay Gerald a visit. Accompanying her on the trip is her level-headed aunt Edith (Katherine Emery, best known for her starring role in the classic chiller ISLE OF THE DEAD). When Kitty and Edith arrive at the MacTeam estate they immediately suspect something strange is afoot. For starters Gerald seems to have aged twenty-years in a matter of weeks. Secondly, this once nice and charming guy has turned into a complete jerk who repeatedly demands they leave the castle and never come back. When Edith comes down with a mild cold, Kitty uses it as an excuse to stay there to try to get to the bottom of things.<br /><br />Why is Gerald being so cold and cruel to the woman he was just about to marry? Why is Gerald so opposed to having company? Why do the house rules state that guests must be locked inside their bedrooms at night? Why are guests forbidden to enter certain areas of the estate, such as Gerald's bedroom and a large hedge maze out back? And what's making those strange dragging noises every night? These are just some of the questions THE MAZE poses. The movie actually does a fine job building up mystery and intrigue. You genuinely become interested in what's going on and patiently await the resolution to explain the weird events that are taking place. And then IT happens... I definitely don't want to ruin the finale of this film because you're better off not knowing, but it takes one of the most unbelievable and jaw-droppingly strange turns I've seen in any movie. It's wonderfully ludicrous in a way, but it also takes a pretty solid little b/w mystery and sends it straight into Z-Grade schlock territory. And yet, this ending seems so out of place, you're not likely to forget it once you see it.<br /><br />Despite the ending (or maybe even partially because of the ending), I really enjoyed this odd bird. It's extremely talky and slow moving for the duration of the run time, but it managed to keep my interest throughout. Director William Cameron Menzies (who made the much more famous INVADERS FROM MARS the same year) is best known as a two-time Oscar-winning art director and his set designs here are also really interesting. There's almost a silent movie feel at times, with model work for some of the exteriors, some painted backdrops and sparsely decorated interiors with very high ceilings. As with any good castle set there are also secret passageways and long staircases. This one also throws in a few rubber-bats-on-strings for good measure.<br /><br />A few of the actors are a little stiff and awkward, but I liked most of the cast. Hurst is one of those obscure and mostly unknown actresses who unfortunately never seemed to catch on despite being both beautiful and talented. Emery, who also gets to play narrator in framing shots at the beginning and end of the film, is decent enough as the overly mannered and cautious aunt. My favorite however was Michael Pate as the silver-haired sinister servant who does this hilariously upright zombie walk every time he ascends the stairs. Also on board in smaller roles are Hillary Brooke (who played the title role in the Sherlock Holmes mystery THE WOMAN IN GREEN) and Lilian Bond (Whale's THE OLD DARK HOUSE). Of course Carlson also starred in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and some other horror flicks, so you've got yourself a pretty decent cast for genre fans right there. I say check it out! | positive |
This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.<br /><br />I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone. | negative |
The acronymic "F.P.1" stands for "Floating Platform #1". The film portends the building of an "F.P.1" in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, to be used as an "air station" for transatlantic plane flights. Based a contemporary Curt Siodmark novel; it was filmed in German as "F.P.1 antwortet nicht" (1932), in French as "I.F.1 ne répond plus" (1933), and in English as "F.P.1" (1933). Soon, technology made non-stop oceanic travel much more preferable.<br /><br />Stars Conrad Veidt (as Ellissen), Jill Esmond (as Droste), and Leslie Fenton (as Claire) find love and sabotage on and off the Atlantic platform. Karl Hartl directed. Mr. Veidt is most fun to watch; but, he is not convincing in the "love triangle" with Ms. Esmond and Mr. Fenton. The younger co-stars were the spouses of Laurence Olivier and Ann Dvorak, respectively. Both the concept and film have not aged well. <br /><br />**** F.P.1 (4/3/33) Karl Hartl ~ Conrad Veidt, Jill Esmond, Leslie Fenton | negative |
The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans! | positive |
Starring an unknown cast which seem likely to remain that way, this "film" is yet another cheap slasher flick which amazes me how this was released. I have no problem with horrors and slasher flicks in particular, in fact they are my favourites. But when they are done THIS BAD, it really does take the monkey and its no wonder the genre has such a hard time. The story is as clichéd and without imagination as possible with a bunch of people in a cabin out in the woods being slashed and hacked up by this zombie/ghost guy. Its not the story that sucks the most, its the atrocious acting and dialouge, home made directing quality and an awful soundtrack. Not to mention laughable effects and some incredibly lazy film making - these morons are outside in clear daylight yet we are meant to believe it's night?? What the hell was the director thinking with this move? What, he had only one day to film all this in? He was scared of the dark? ( Is hilarious seeing a cop walking around in pure daylight with a torch acting as if its pitch black, though)<br /><br />I guess the positive side for the actors is they look like people who work in the local supermarket so at least they could possibly escape from this film without ever being noticed. Im sure one of the "teens" plays bingo down the local pub - but she's 40-45.<br /><br />Anyway, good for a laugh but just another waste of film and time. | negative |
My personal vision of hell is being locked in a room without the ability to close my eyes or block my ears and have this movie play for eternity on every available surface in that room. The whole notion that Streisand plays a boy/man only begins to scratch the surface of how ridiculous a premise this movie is. The single most important thing about watching any movie is the concept of "willing suspension of disbelief" . . . it is impossible to do that in this movie. | negative |
Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.<br /><br />Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.<br /><br />Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.<br /><br />John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.<br /><br />The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.<br /><br />I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.<br /><br />But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects. | negative |
This thriller is one of the few (film) surprises I've had in quite some time. Everybody - and I do mean EVERYBODY - I talked to when it was in the theatres said it was awful...but then I got to thinking...none of these people really understand horror/thriller films or metal rock - so WHY DO I LISTEN TO THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE????? This film kicks ass - but ONLY if you are able to comprehend and enjoy this type of entertainment. In short (too late) - see it with an open mind and it might just open your mind. ...the soundtracks great too... | positive |
Gracie (Minnie Driver), a woman in her late twenties, is on a waiting list for a heart transplant. Bob (David Duchovny) has just had the tragedy of losing his wife in an automobile accident. One can guess the outcome. Gracie receives Bob's wife's heart, although they have no knowledge of each other....yet! A year later, Gracie is feeling like a new person while Bob is just beginning to think about his social life. When a friend sets him up on a blind date, Bob finds himself interested in the waitress, Gracie, at the restaurant where the date occurs. They begin to see each other. How long will it be before the truth materializes and what will be the consequences? This lovely, funny, and touching movie is one of the best romantic comedies ever constructed. The two stars dazzle as the couple only heaven could bring together and the supporting cast, of Bonnie Hunt, Jim Belushi, and Carroll O'Connor, are just marvelous as well. Taking place near Chicago, the neighborhood setting is likewise charming and beautiful. Let's make that dittos for the costumes and script. If you know someone who goes ga-ga over mirthful love stories, you will be in their good graces forever if you introduce him or her to this fine movie. | positive |
13 days to Glory tells the traditional tale with sympathy toward the Mexican viewpoint. The major problem in this movie was that while cowboy actor James Arness played the part of Jim Bowie persuasively, the rest of the name actors in the cast Brian Keith (Davy Crocket) and Lorne Greene (Sam Houston) were too old.<br /><br />Raul Julia played General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna with grace and dignity owed to the professional soldier who after all won the battle. The scene where he upbraids his officers for failing to mount a guard and prevent a sortee is one the scriptwriters did not understand. Failing to keep watch is a major remiss in the military. Santa Anna was within his prerogatives to be angry. Raul Julia magnificently carried poor writing through the scene.<br /><br />Kathleen York was an impressive Susannah Dickinson, a woman who deserves to be remembered for her courage. However, Kathleen York might have been reminded that as Dickinsons hailed from Pennsylvania they probable dis not sound very Southron. | positive |
This truly funny movie has a zany cast of characters, just about every voluptuous middle-aged female in Hollywood, and a touching, funny love story. The Capomezza's and the Malacici's are rival caterers in an Italian neighborhood in New York. They are also at opposite--extreme--ends of the taste scale. Their children are cast in the lead roles of a church production of Romeo and Juliet. Naturally, they fall in love. On stage! The mayhem and confusion that this causes, as the parents feud with each other and their kids, is played out for us against the backdrop of the Capomezza's magnificently tasteless home, and their magnificently tasteless catered weddings.<br /><br />Besides the four over-the-top parents and the charming young lovers, the characters include a vaguely wise priest, a plain-speaking grandma, a lady who waves a wand and passes on spiritual advice she receives from a medium called The Blessed Roscoe, a motel with beds shaped like the back seat of a car, and two doves. There is not a sight gag or a punch line that doesn't click in this fast paced movie.<br /><br />Even the family names of the two families are part of the fun. "Capomezza" could be interpreted as "low-brows," and "Malacici" could mean "stuck-up snobs." <br /><br />If you are sensitive about Italian stereotypes, you may not like this movie. If Bette Midler embarrasses you, you may not like it, because all of the women in this movie make Bette Midler look like Martha Stewart. The rest of us should love it! | positive |
I had very high hopes walking into this movie. After all, Ocean's 11 was a truly great Hollywood product. Its rapid-fire jokes, incredible star power and tight script made it one of the most fun caper films I have ever seen. Of course, with all the money it made, a sequel was on the way, and I, for one, was excited.<br /><br />Needless to say, I was absolutely blown away by this movie. Blown away by how horribly wrong things can go. This movie had everything going for it; the return of the entire original cast, the same director, news stories of crazy on- and off-set antics. How could it possibly have gone so wrong?<br /><br />It starts immediately with one of the most awkward and unnecessary opening sequences ever and goes downhill from there. After reasonably goofy short scenes between Pitt/Zeta-Jones and Clooney/Roberts, the film spends several minutes watching Andy Garcia waltz from scene to scene, telling each individual member of Danny Ocean's original eleven that he wants his money back. Believe me when I say that these scenes are only here to pad Andy Garcia's running time, because without these ridiculously awkward shots, his screen time would be WELL under five minutes.<br /><br />This leads me to another major qualm I had with this film. The pacing is so uneven that characters are dropped completely from the story, and only sometimes brought back later. Bernie Mac's character is dropped from the script early on, and never comes back except for 2 short scenes with no dialogue. Garcia appears for the first few minutes, and returns for an exceptionally brief scene at the end. Roberts shows up for about 5 minutes at the beginning, and isn't even mentioned again until there's about 20-25 minutes left. Even Clooney himself spends a large chunk of the film in prison.<br /><br />This would all be excusable if the film was funny. At all. 90% of the jokes fall completely flat and the ones that do work are worth a chuckle at best. The "plot" is undeniably worthless, and left me feeling cheated. At one point in the film, the team takes on a job worth $2.5 million of the nearly $100 million they need to raise before Garcia's two-week deadline. Several characters even acknowledge how absurd wasting the time to do this job is, but they do it anyway! Over 30 minutes of the film revolve around this job that they shouldn't even be doing, and one gets the feeling that this part of the plot was simply added to pad the running time. Furthermore, the equipment they use to pull this job off CLEARLY cost millions upon millions to fund. Just wait until you see what they do to pull this job and realize it would cost far more than $2.5 million to pull off. Obviously, because of this, they have to pull off several jobs to make the money. The beauty of the first film was the one big con and how ingeniously and intricately it was pulled off. Here, they pull so many jobs, in so many different ways, that they rush through all of them because to explain them would make the film several hours long.<br /><br />We all know walking into this film that there will be a big twist at the end. Thus is the nature of the caper film. The twist at the end of Ocean's Twelve made me laugh; not because it was funny, but because I couldn't believe how cheated I felt. I won't give it away, because I know most of you will be foolish enough to throw down the money to see this movie anyway.<br /><br />What I will say is that it makes most of the 2 hours you have sat through already completely irrelevant.<br /><br />I was excited to see this film, after absolutely adoring Ocean's 11. I left the theater feeling like I had been the victim of a truly great con pulled by the cast and crew of this movie in tricking me into thinking that this movie would actually be worth watching. I have never given a 1 to a movie on IMDb.com, but there's a first time for everything. Consider yourselves warned....1/10 | negative |
I must confess that I don't remember this film very well. But, certainly I liked it. I think it was the best adaptation from Burroughs novel, really. And of course it's one of the best movie from Christopher Lambert.<br /><br />A good movie about Tarzan, as cult as the ones with Weissmuller. | positive |
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min. | negative |
As a kid I loved the song "Never smile at a crocodile", and if I found myself in this state of affairs, which is actually inspired by true events. Smiling would be the last thing on my mind. From the opening set-up, I've never been so entrenched, caught up and finally exhausted like I was when watching this limited budget Independent Australian horror film, about three people in Northern Territory trapped in a mangrove swamp with a very conniving crocodile waiting in the water below them. What really brought the film alive, was how realistic it managed to be in transporting the fear and uncertainty of the characters' situation to the audience. Semi-documentary camera-work with a disquietingly eerie backdrop and authentic performances effectively take you out of your comfort zone. What we get is a patient survival tale than just a bloody, all-out creature feature onslaught. Think of "Open Water (2003)", where its budget and time restraint made sure it would stay low-key, but this minimal barrier enhanced the experience.<br /><br />The slow-grinding story might be black and white, but it never seemed to become disposable, or succumb to formulaic patterns. Well not largely, and the connection between the characters were emotionally engaging even with a bare, straight-forward script. Although you can say "less is more", with the actions and expressions illuminating the lingering thoughts plaguing their minds. The ordeal is utterly terrifying, because the threat is very alive and never seems to loosen up. This is what drives the film's chaotic adrenaline, and in which it lasts (even when its kept buried) through to the very end. <br /><br />Writers / Directors Andrew Traucki and David Nerlich's economical guidance alienates and smartly strings along the viewer with its taut pacing and harrowing psychological traits. In certain patches the notch goes up, with pressure induced suspense and startling images. The way the night sequence is executed is immensely chilling and pulsating. The menacing crocodile manipulative toys with its fresh-meat in a distressingly suspenseful approach. Sure some moments felt unlikely, but never does it get in the way or distract. Sound FX is the key, and at times the lack of any just eats away at you. Rafeal May's musical score is unassuming and doesn't really enter the mixture much, but when it does it builds an organic sounding quality. The cinematography of John Biggins is beautifully devised, and rapidly aggressive when the mood changes. It was always on the move and claustrophobic, but none of this jerky movements. The editing was sharply handled, and the effects were professionally catered by superbly combing live crocodile footage. <br /><br />Something like this production would also have to rely on its cast to sell to the story in a believable manner and they do it. Diana Glenn, Andy Rodoreda and especially Maeve Dermody are persuasively good. A lot of the responsibility falls on Dermody, and she strongly delivers with an inspired turn. Now this item might cop some comparisons with another killer crocodile film "Rogue (2007)", but the two couldn't be any different in what they want to be and how they end up. If I had to pick though, I'm leaning more towards this outing for its sheer involvement to snap at you.<br /><br />A remarkable effort on all fronts, with everyone involved showing potential to really look out for. | positive |
My grandad gave me this DVD. With friends like these. The front cover looked quite scary thought i'd watch it. What a bloody mistake.<br /><br />Basically the film follows three people on a bus and what happens to them involving friends.<br /><br />The first one is about a guy who buys a car that talks to him. The second is a about a guy who wakes up to find a cassarole clone in his fridge. And the third is about a woman who does online dating but it turns out he has a robotic arm.<br /><br />The DVD case rated this film 18 but even a 5 year old can watch this and not be scard or entertained. The film should be rated 12 for slight scares and the swear word bloody.<br /><br />All in all this film is utter shite don't go near it. | negative |
The best thing about this movie is that it is fun. It is full of humorous characters and interesting situations, starting with the blithe, innocent Pecker (played appealingly by Edward Furlong) who likes to photograph almost everything he sees in every day life. Other great characters include Pecker's friend Matt ("he's a thief, but he's really a nice guy"), Pecker's sister Chrissy (who is addicted to sugar), and Pecker's Catholic grandmother who discovers life in a statuette of the Virgin Mary in her room.<br /><br />The movie gently makes a point about how every day life has many riches to offer, and it succeeds in making this point without being too heavy-handed about it. There is always a risk, when making messages about the value and dignity of "common people", of sliding into a kind of reverse "holier than thou" - but "Pecker" avoids these traps, allowing the audience to get the point while allowing enough breathing room for viewers to compare this message to their own thoughts on the subject.<br /><br />I recommend the movie mostly because it is a lot of fun. | positive |
The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold. | positive |
I never heard of architect, Louis Kahn, until this documentary. In this almost two hour documentary which goes very quickly, his son, Nathaniel Kahn, explores his father's life from Estonia to the slums of North Philadelphia to the University of Pennsylvania in West Philadelphia where he studied and taught. He travels to Bangladesh, Israel, Connecticut, Trenton, and La Jolla, California as well as New York City to explore his father's creative genius. Personally, Louis Kahn had three families including his wife, Esther, who refused to give him a divorce and their daughter Sue Ann. Nathaniel includes his family members. Louis also has another half-sister Alexandra Tynge from his father's previous relationship with Anne Tyne, a fellow architect. Louis' passion was his art. | positive |
Things to Come is indeed a classic work of speculative fiction; both an essay on the destructive nature of war and the terrors of progress. It makes some surprising accurate depictions of the war that was to follow a few years later, but is woefully naive in it's Utopian ideals.<br /><br />Raymond Massey, Cedric Hardwicke, and Ralph Richardson make up a fine cast, although the drama is played more as a stage piece, than a work of cinema. There are grandiose, if somewhat stilted speeches, often delivered as if the actor is trying to reach the back of the theater. However, there are some profound words there. Is technology the savior of mankind, or the instrument of its destruction? The film is a visual feast, if one can detach oneself from the age of the effects. Sure, Hollywood is more sophisticated today, but rarely as inventive. For the imaginative, the third act is a treat: a world with underground cities, massive deco bombers, space cannons, gyro copters, and secret organizations of scientist saviors. It has all of the makings of a sci-fi pulp adventure, but instead uses the trappings for a philosophical exercise.<br /><br />Things to Come and Metropolis were the hallmarks of neolithic Hollywood science fiction cinema. They are operatic in scope, and visually inspiring. Technology has long left them behind, but their ideas still burst forth. There is an artistry there, one with more heart and emotion than the computer generated mass-produced cinema of today. These films are the products of artisans, not industrialists. | positive |
I really tried to like "Saw." The story was good, and I admire the breakneck pace of the way the film was shot. However, there were too many clichés and elements that while they may have looked "cool," they really made no sense.<br /><br />First, what I liked about the film was the overall tone of the story, and I thought the premise was fantastic. The character of The Jigsaw Killer was intriguing and reminded me of vintage Dario Argento. Danny Glover was excellent in his role as an obsessed detective, and Monica Potter was good in a thankless role as a doctor's abducted wife. Shawnee Smith's scene was incredible and both Wan and Whannell should be commended for using that scene as a demo to get the backing for the film. The whole notion that the Jigsaw killer finds a way for his victims to kill themselves is an excellent notion, but once the film got going, logic began to get away.<br /><br />Once they showed that Zap was the one holding Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter hostage, it was apparent that he was not the Jigsaw killer, and part of it. The scene where he puts a stethoscope over the heart of the terrified Diana while Allison screams at him through her gag was one of the most gratuitous scenes I've ever seen. It was supposed to be chilling, but establishing nothing. Also, since the Jigsaw killer finds a way for victims to kill themselves, he has no problem slicing the throat of a police officer. I guess it's a way to show that he doesn't want to get caught and will go to any means necessary to ensure that doesn't happen, but to me it just didn't make any logic, especially when he shows no remorse over the death of another detective (which I did like that setup, just would've been better if given to someone who actually deserved it).<br /><br />I felt Leigh Whannell was fine as Adam. It wasn't really a showy role and he has a lot of potential as a character actor. However, I wasn't too fond of James Wan's direction. The story may have been original, but the direction sure wasn't. I guess I'm tired of quick, MTV style cuts in favor of the old approach to directing, but a lot of scenes involving the Jigsaw killer reminded me too much of "Se7en," way too much of it. As the film progressed, to me it was starting to become a series of demo reels like "Hey, look what I can do." Instead of being intriguing, it became very distracting. But hey, it worked. He's now directing "Final Destination 3" so he's on a path to a successful career, and I think he will become a top notch horror director in years to come.<br /><br />What really did it in for me was the ending. Like I said, I knew that Jigsaw wasn't Zap, and I liked how Adam discovered the mini tape player after killing him. It would've had a terrific ending, except for one fatal flaw: I felt they should've left it where you didn't know who the killer was. The way it was done was only done for one reason: Boy, are we clever? Uh, no. To me, it just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Some of the better horror films are made for a reason, where there is a reason for the violence we see in the story. While "Saw" started out very well, it started to become undone by the filmmakers' insatiable need to be "cool" and detract from the winning story they had. Perhaps if they weren't too insistent on making the films themselves, and relied on a more experienced horror director to helm it, I think it would've been the horror classic that it undeservedly has been given over the past four months. If this and "Cabin Fever" are the future of horror, I'm very scared. | negative |
I actually retired from Asian horror films some time ago after becoming completely sick of seeing samey ghost story rubbish. However, I've been getting more and more into exploitation flicks recently, and so decided to give them another chance. My first port of call was highly rated director Takashi Miike's highly rated 'Visitor Q'. I'd already seen Audition, and while I didn't like it much, I do rate it as one of the better modern Asian horror films. So, I went into this with sensible expectations; and unfortunately, found only boredom. I suppose this movie is actually really clever and it just went over my head, but what it seemed like to me was simply a collection of violent and nasty scenes with little or no coherency between them. Any comparisons to the work of Luis Bunuel and David Lynch is blasphemous as far as I'm concerned; all Miike has done here is make a film; any intelligence surrounding it has been implemented by pretentious fans, desperate to find some kind of meaning. My headache set in about 10 minutes in (after a father had sex with his daughter for some reason), and it didn't subside until the movie finally ended; at least twenty four hours later, or so it would seem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against violence in movies and in fact actively seek out the most notorious films around; but while this may be violent, it's also pointless and boring and I didn't get one ounce of enjoyment out of it. Takashi Miike may have a lot of fans, but I'm certainly not one of them; and I certainly hope this is the last time I'll come into contact with one of his films. | negative |
A super, unusual film from Audiard, Read My Lips is a pulpy, lonely- hearts thriller. It's perfect for the handsomely grizzled charisma of Vincent Cassel and features a marvellously contained performance from Emanuelle Devos. Devos is a recurring feature of Audiard in the same way that KArin Viard pops up for Jean-Pierre Jeunet: unconventionally beautiful (she's referred to by everyone as unattractive in this film), versatile and capable of a subordinate profile.<br /><br />This is almost the definition of her role as Carla, a put-upon office dogsbody, taunted by colleagues exploiting her deafness. Yet she finds an ami d'exploitation, if you like in Cassel's ex-con Paul. Each exploits the other's unconventional talents (theft and lip reading) to struggle through their respective situations and form an unconventionally romantic rapprochement. Devos/Audiard manage Carla's deafness and its attendant, warped inner world with discreet, stylish flair.<br /><br />In this film (2001) Audiard is already clearly in control of his handling on tension, action and investing his frame with a truly visceral experience which will become the great hit - A Prophet - of nine years later. 7/10 | positive |
Beautifully filmed, mind expanding exploration of Gypsy culture in the context of their music. Travel across a continent, experiencing the amazing musical styles of various groups of Gypsy peoples. It is sort of misleading to say this movie is not narrated. It is masterfully narrated by the music itself, the soaring melodies and subtititled lyrics tell a story much better than a narrator would have. See this film. | positive |
Humour is a very individual thing and the audience at the sneak preview of The Wog Boy seemed to enjoy it more than I did. I found it an anachronistic affair, more representative of the old fashioned racial humour of the Australian cinema of the 1960s and 1970s. The boy meets girl plot never takes off because of a lack of chemistry between Lucy Bell and Nick Giannopoulos while I found laughs thin on the ground. If you want to spend your money on this, wait until it's on video. | negative |
"The Matador" stars Pierce Brosnan as a burned out assassin. He's James Bond gone to seed, in too-tight, garish clothes, gold chains, and an ugly haircut. Our struggling assassin, Julian Noble, is in Mexico, trying to regain his nerve. Staying at the same hotel is a likable, down-on-his luck businessman Danny Wright (Greg Kinnear), also trying to regain his equilibrium. Danny is desperate to close a deal and return to his wife in Denver (Hope Davis) with good news.<br /><br />Noble and Wright unexpectedly become friends. Wright convinces Noble to reveal certain techniques, which he demonstrates at a bullfight. Noble is eventually targeted by his employers and shows up in Denver. <br /><br />Writer and director Richard Shepard did the Q&A after this delightful movie at the Austin Film Festival. Shepard was also down on his luck. After suffering the loss of his agent and rejection of recent scripts, he decided to write a story no one would buy and create a character no one would want to play. Then Pierce Brosnan called. Brosnan regains his equilibrium in this movie. (There is life after Bond!) He has a wonderful flair for self-deprecating comedy. Don't miss it. <br /><br />Stay for the closing credits to read what the filmmakers say about bullfighting. I look forward to more of Richard Shepard's projects. | positive |
I will not spoil your surprise by mentioning any of the hideous plot lines, I'll just say that this movie suffers from poor animation, over acting, obvious tag lines
these are some of it's good qualities. if you are deserted on an isolated island and the only link to civilization you got is this movie throw it to the fish. I can't tell you how much I'm sorry I saw this horrifying ghastly movie. Speaking of which, this movie supposedly a horror movie cannot be classified as such for the simple fact that the only horror in the movie is the playing capabilities of some of the actors.<br /><br />Take care. | negative |
First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie "Embryo" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of "Embryo" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why "Embryo" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's "Embryo". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson ("Giant", "Seconds"), Diane Ladd ("Chinatown", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics "Soldier Blue" and "Charly". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clichéd and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with. <br /><br />Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film. | negative |
A major moneymaker for RKO Radio, Bombardier stars Pat O'Brien and Randolph Scott as trainers at a school for bomber pilots. O'Brien and Scott argue over teaching methods, while their students vie for the affections of Anne Shirley. O'Brien's methods prove sound during a bombing raid over Tokyo. Scott and his crew are captured and tortured by the Japanese, but the mortally wounded Scott manages to set fire to a gas truck, providing a perfect target for his fellow bombardiers. Stylistically, Bombardier is one of the most schizophrenic of war films, with moments of subtle poignancy (the death of trainee Eddie Albert) alternating with scenes of ludicrous "Yellow Peril" melodrama (the Japanese literally hiss through their teeth as they torture the helpless Americans). Though it can't help but seem dated today, Bombardier remains an entertaining propaganda effort (the film is sometimes erroneously listed as the debut of Robert Ryan, who'd actually been appearing before the cameras since 1940.<br /><br />Anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this film, please contact me at: [email protected] | positive |
When a movie's claim to fame is that Martin Sheen's younger, less known brother stars in it, you know it's not gonna' be a real good one. "Soultaker" is a low budget, silly film about a group of 20-something year olds being pursued by an angel of death. It's a stupid movie, but it is pretty entertaining, and even somehow slightly likable in it's stupidity.<br /><br />The plot in the film is very small, and it's stretched about as far as it possibly can be. Joe Estevez isn't much of an actor, so luckily for the audience, he has very few lines and his role in mostly just him walking. This movie really feels like it was trying to be a horror/fantasy franchise, considering it has the same plot layout as a slasher. 4 characters, each dies one at a time...will any live? Who really cares. Though it sounds like I hated this, I didn't. I just didn't like it very well, but I was interested through most of it, so I guess that counts for something.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 90 mins. PG-13 for language, violence and nudity. | negative |
It's just such a joy to have watched this intriguing project. So refreshing and educating. Not only to a filmmaker, who can learn what can be achieved in 5 minutes of screen time, but also as audience, who may not be so ready for so much love in such short time.<br /><br />20 short films about love in Paris are all unique, but some of them, as expected, stand out. I thought the Tom Tykwer (Natalie Portman) segment was the best, although the mimes made me smile inside just the same.<br /><br />I clicked on "spoilers" option for this review bus alas...what you read is a spoiler enough. Just watch it. Don't read what I write, but watch the movie instead.<br /><br />And smile. | positive |
The peace and beauty of Koyaanisqatsi was a powerful affirmation of the natural world. In Naqoyqatsi, we are assaulted by images of the synthetic, the competitive, the violent, and the digital -- the destructive constructs of our culture.<br /><br />Some liberties are taken with the images, with posterization, distressing, and much slow motion. The connections between the sequences are inscrutable, if there are any. Naqoyqatsi is defined at the film's end, a missed opportunity to place the images in context.<br /><br />The film is difficult to watch, the quality of the archival footage uneven, and it's most redeeming qualities are its theme and the hypnotic score of Philip Glass. | negative |
A movie this dumb should never see the light of day. The acting is lame, the violence is just all over the place, the sneaking ending is just plain stupid.<br /><br />It's all about a lawyer who saw a murder done by the R.I.C.C.O. squad. No one has never seen him, not even the hit men themselves. So he and a beautiful lady are on the run trying to find the leader of this R.I.C.C.O. squad, before they find them.<br /><br />Then the movie goes on to a romance, gun shooting, and voodoo. Now how in the hell did voodoo come in this. Never see this film if your life depends on it. Trust Me!!!!!!!! | negative |
Dead To Rights is about a Police Officer named Jack Slate who finds his murdered father and goes after the man that he thinks killed him.Jack is later shot and framed for the murder of the man he suspected of killing his father.<br /><br />Several months later on the day Jack is going to be executed he escapes from prison and searches the city for the man who framed him for murder.Jack's search leads him through a trail of *beep* that doesn't end until everyone is dead.<br /><br />Through out the game Jack uses weapons from M4 Carbines to his dog Shadow to kill endless streams of people in 15 levels.The game play is basically "kill 30 people,find switch to open door.kill 50 people,find switch to open door" over and over until the level is done.There are fun mini games too like playing as a stripper to distract bouncers at a Night Club so Jack can get to another area in the club,or bomb disarming.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is also a hard game.You will be put in an area swarming with bad guys armed with Sub Machine Guns while you only have a pistol.Near the end of the game skill turns to dust and you have to rely on luck.<br /><br />Dead To Rights is as gory as it is hard.If you shoot a guy in the face with a shot gun blood will splatter on the walls,ceiling and floor.And since there are several guys in each area the walls will be painted in blood.<br /><br />Family fun for everyone. | positive |
I just saw this last night, it was broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's 'Passionate Eye' series. It has been screened recently (Sept. 2003) at the Toronto International Film Festival as well as many others. It is a quite remarkable film. The filmmakers literally stumbled into the story, being there to make a documentary about Chavez himself. Instead, they found themselves squarely in the middle of events as the coup unfolded. They had unprecedented access to events and people and, for the most part, let the story unfold as it happens. They, of course, have their own ideological perspective (which they make evident) but they keep themselves in the background and instead try to focus attention on the events, the people, and the background and history leading up to the coup. As a film, it is not ground-breaking in a stylistic or aesthetic sense, and that is, I think, the way it should be. What we get to see what 'embedded' journalism should really be. What we get to see is a remarkable account of a country struggling to attain democracy... a charismatic leader (Chavez) who actually cares for his people... a story about power and greed as a coalition of corporate/military/media interests combine to lead a coup of a democratically elected leader... and unprecedented access to a historical event as it unfolds.<br /><br /> | positive |
VILLA RIDES (1968) turns out to be something of a big disappointment! And even though Sam Peckinpah had a hand in the screenplay, along with Robert Towne, it still emerges as a leadenly written movie dryly directed by the undistinguished Buzz Kulik. Firstly, top billed Yul Brynner as Pancho Villa is wrong for the part! He's not charismatic enough to play the great Mexican revolutionary! His one note performance lacks the fire and gusto Anthony Quinn or Gilbert Roland could have brought to the role. Brynner simply looks like a Russian aristocrat dressed up like a Mexican bandit who is in the middle of the Mexican revolution instead of the Russian one. Also, second billed Robert Mitchum is totally wasted in the picture! His part as a biplane flying ace lobbing home-made bombs from the air in the cause of the revolution is a poorly written meager role that could have been played by any minor star. Mitch hasn't a decent line in the entire movie and brings to one's mind his other Mexican revolution picture the far superior "Bandido" (1956) which unfortunately nobody seems to have any interest in releasing on DVD. Besides lacking any kind of style "Villa Rides" also suffers badly without the presence of a female star! There is starlet Grazia Buccella as a young Mexican girl who gives Mitchum the glad eye but her casting is merely perfunctory. Someone like Claudia Cardinale or Jean Peters could have perhaps added a couple of badly needed notches to the faltering story line.<br /><br />There are a couple of good action scenes in the movie but a couple of good action scenes do not a movie make and the less than perfect Panavision picture quality plus the over repetitive Maurice Jarre theme tune doesn't help matters.<br /><br />As is Paramount's wont there are no extras - not even a trailer! Yup, a disappointing movie and DVD presentation that could have been and should have been a whole lot better. | negative |
"The Racketeer" stars Carol (deprived of the "e" that usually appeared at the end of her first name) Lombard as a woman thrown out of society because she left her husband for a concert violinist (Roland Drew) who has since become a down-and-out alcoholic, and torn between her love for him and the interest of New York crime kingpin Robert Armstrong (top-billed). It's virtually a compendium of what was wrong with the earliest talkies: stiff direction, immobile cameras, stagy acting and ridiculously slow-paced delivery of lines. At the time the sound crews were telling the directors to have their actors speak every line s-l-o-w-l-y and not to start speaking their own line until after the previous actor had finished theirs. Done about five years later, this could have been an interesting movie, but director Howard Higgin faithfully follows his sound recorder's dictates and systematically undercuts the talents we know Lombard and Armstrong had from watching their later movies. "The Racketeer" was made in 1929, a year that despite the transition problems from silent to sound nonetheless gave us some legitimate masterpieces Vidor's "Hallelujah!," Mamoulian's "Applause," Wyler's "Hell's Heroes," Capra's "Ladies of Leisure" all from directors with strong enough wills to tell the soundboard dictators to get stuffed and let their actors talk and act naturalistically. Too bad Howard Higgin wasn't that strong; as it is, watching a naturally rapid-paced actor like Armstrong slog through the part in the ridiculous way he's been told to speak, one can't help but wonder where that 50-foot gorilla is when Armstrong needs him. | negative |
I've read a number of reviews on this film and I have to say "What is wrong with you people?!?!" This was an excellent film! I thought this film was superb from start to finish and the story was extremely well told. I'm convinced that the people that didn't like this film weren't paying very good attention to the film. There are a number of very important scenes that if you aren't paying attention you will be confused and the following scenes may not make sense. I urge anyone who didn't like this film to watch it again and watch it alone so that you can truly pay attention. The story made perfect sense to me and as I said, was very well told. Every scene in the film has a point and everything fits together at the end of the film.<br /><br />All the actors did a fantastic job! Sean Connery was very good in his role as always. Laurence Fishburne was superb as Tanny Brown, playing a very interesting character. Kate Capshaw was a nice touch as well, and looks fantastic. Blair Underwood was a pleasant surprise, I didn't really expect anything great from him, but he pulled off a great performance. Ed Harris was the real gem in the film. He plays a truly sick individual and really makes you see how disturbed his character is. Watch his eyes in his scenes, just superb!!! Also, there is a very young Scarlett Johansson (as Kate) in one of her first roles...not a bad place to start. Excellent cast in this film!<br /><br />I would strongly recommend this film to anyone that likes any of the cast members or just likes thrillers. This is a great film and should be seen. Don't listen all these other people's opinions, go see the movie and come to your own conclusions. I hope that you will see the film, and I hope that you enjoy it as much as I do. Thanks for reading,<br /><br />-Chris | positive |
Before Tuscan Sky, I saw Diane Lane's tender performance in this otherwise lark of a movie. Campers are invited to the camp of their youth and experience it as adults. Each of those that return seem to be looking for something they lost, which makes it so realistic. Maybe you had to be a camper to really get it, but in the words of one character noticing all her clothes were wet "this is so camp!" From the practical jokes and fighting over boyfriends, to the scary lunch lady and the early morning bell ... it's amp. Once exciting activities now seem mundane. A terrific ensemble cast makes the best of one-two dimensional roles and makes them believable. Bill Paxton, Diane, Elizabeth, Mrs. Brad Paisley (probably when he first fell for her!!) The beautiful scenery, bright colors, comical music (including variations of Hello Muddah)and a comic acting turn by noted director Sam Raimi makes this a movie you can pull out again and again like looking up an old friend. | positive |
I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.<br /><br />Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.<br /><br />It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.<br /><br />The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.<br /><br /> | negative |
I must say. This is easily one of my FAVORITE movies to watch on Halloween. The halloween party, the horrid acting, the guy dressed like and extra from Miami Vice. GREAT GREAT GREAT!!!<br /><br />*********************SPOILERS***************************<br /><br />I have a huge place in my heart for random 80's horror flicks and this one reached out and tugged at my heart strings. I always passes this flick at Blockbuster and always laughed at the cover of the box. Now every weekend I would grab a random movie I had never seen before...one weekend it was Angelas turn. She seemed to have been taunting me for months. So I took it home put it in and spent most of the movie underneath the blanket.<br /><br />For me, it was terrifying and gross. And not just the acting! Some of the things they came up with for this movie was AMAZING. I can honestly say the best part for me was watching Suzanne (played by a fellow iowan) stick a tube of lipstick through her nipple. It was random and I loved it. Watching creepy Angela FLOAT through the hallways and hearing her creepy demon voice was enough to have me awake ALL NIGHT LONG! <br /><br />It isn't one of the most clever or best acted horror movies. But its 80's cheese and its got all the elements you need. Creepy Goth Kid, Virgin, Slut, Naked Girls, Scary House, Bad Acting, oh and did I mention Naked Girls? All the elements were there and were put together in such a way that made for one of my fave movies. Kudos to the filmmakers. | positive |
Though I have watched Salò, I do not know if excrement tastes tart. If it does, this "film" is accurately titled. So much of roughage, so little substance, this is the celluloid equivalent of celery - only it does not cleanse the palate. It leaves the taste of wasted time in the mind's mouth, and if I could vomit this film and get back that expanse/expense I would. Detention was more exciting. The director should be forced to wear a dunce cap, and the Spirit of Ed Wood Jr. couldn't save this semi-professional projection from certain failure. A waste of time, a waste of mind. **Don't be fooled by the toothsome Dominique Swain: competent eye-candy she was in the Lolita remake, less tragic and savvier than Sue Lyon, though by no means better. However, a previously competent turn of the screw does not make her a skilled crafts-person. You need craft for that, not crap, which is what this film is. The reels belong in the girls' bathroom, flushed till the pipes burst, while director/direct-less Christina Wayne should do 5-10 in study hall. Watch anything else and pass this class, by (bye), forever! | negative |
Having watched the show for about four weeks, which is enough to get a feel for the show, I think it shows potential. Whilst much is borrowed from other shows (what sci-fi doesn't these days), and the characters are stereotyped, I like what they are doing with the stories. There is some continuity with plot development and character interaction/relationship building, despite the essentially modular nature of each episode. There have been some science related topics explored as well as character secret/weakness revelations. These have also added some comedy to the show, something I would gladly see more of in "serious" sci-fi. In all, this makes for good balance, such that can appeal to larger groups of people, unlike the Star Trek vs Babylon 5 debates I've been numerous participant and witness to. The visual aspects of the show are more than adequate, and well budgeted for a first season. The acting is acceptable, and I am curious to see how well the actors manage to grow their characters out of their scripted stereotypes. I see enough positives and potential to remain interested in seeing where the show wants to go... | positive |
This film is all about humans. This film stayed as my all time favorite short cartoon for years.<br /><br />Isn't it the simplest things that make life so much more interesting?! We humans are so soft, compassionate, funny, caring to each other one moment -- we invent the most beautiful and amazing machines to kill as many people as possible with the least effort the next. In our short lives, we destroy our world, each other and often, our own lives, than spend the rest of our lives trying to fix what we've destroyed. Sometimes, there is nothing left to fix!<br /><br />This film can entertain, educate and even help us realize what is wrong in our lives! Life is short and can be even shorter! The ending is way too optimistic I am afraid.<br /><br />I love Richard Condie's mind and what he makes happen with it! <br /><br />Enjoy<br /><br />H.K. | positive |
In "Checking Out", Peter Falk plays an elderly New Yorker who summons his children home so that they can be with him before he plans to commit suicide. As the movie progresses, we get to see everyone's flaws and other problems. While some people may interpret this as a "heartwarming" movie, I mostly enjoyed it for Peter Falk's character not letting anything get him down, and even engaging in a little lewdness now and then.<br /><br />So, it might not be the best movie ever, but still worth seeing. I've long thought that Peter Falk has the perfect look to play this sort of role, what with his glass eye and all. Also starring Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold and Shera Danese (Falk's real-life wife). | positive |
What boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are "HOT" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!<br /><br />So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film. | negative |
I saw this film for one reason: the tagline is "Upset the head
and you're dead!" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head. | negative |
Spreading panic from Broadway to Bombay, 1957's The Giant Claw boasts perhaps the ultimate flying monster in movie history. Described by one terrified Quebecois witness as "La Carcagne she's de devil in de storm with de face of de wolf and de body of de woman with wings, bigger than I can tell," it doesn't say much for Canadian women since when we finally see it in focus it's a cross between an overgrown buzzard, a chickenhawk and Gonzo the Great. But this isn't just any old giant turkey impervious to rockets, invisible to radar and with a taste for swallowing parachutists whole and pecking away at the United Nations Building, it's an extraterrestrial giant turkey from an anti-matter galaxy millions of miles from Earth that's come here to build a nest: "No other explanation is possible." Luckily for humanity Jeff Morrow, test pilot and "chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man birdwatching society," invents a weapon to disable its impenetrable shield so they can hit it with everything but the kitchen sink but don't worry: Morris Ankrum's general assures him "We've got kitchen sinks to spare, son." just in time for a last-minute clinch with co-star Mara Corday. Some of the dialogue has dated rather unfortunately "I admire your spunk, and you keep climbing on our backs whenever we've messed up" and strangely enough it's nowhere near as much fun as a film with a giant flying turkey should be, but the beast itself is such a truly memorable creation for all the wrong reasons that it's hard to dislike even if you are liking it for all the wrong reasons. And full marks to the cast for delivering gem after gem of direlogue with a straight face: "Honest to Pete, I'll never call my mother-in-law an old crow again!," "The only trouble is that the last time I talked to a chaplain there wasn't any telephone line to the one and only place where we can get the kind of help we need" and the immortal "There it is now, attacking the United Nations Building!" | negative |
George Cukor directs this high quality story of suspense in the theatrical world with his usual sensitive but firm touch. Ronald Colman's performance, which earned him an Oscar, still stands up despite a few overwrought moments it's hard to forget his haunted countenance as he struts aimlessly around social functions and tries to find meaning in his life. There are a number of interesting subtexts and Cukor does an excellent job of making them clear without forcing anything too much. The script by Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon is brilliant, mixing the rarified theater world with the seedy world of the streets and comprehensively utilizing elements from Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a reference to both the film's main theme of jealousy and Colman's character's obsession with identity.<br /><br />Several interesting things about this movie superficially it could be dismissed as too flippant a treatment of the everyday problems of actors. In other words if the art of acting required such complete sublimation of individuality we would soon have a rash of psycho method actors stalking the streets. But I don't really think this story's primary concern is acting or the job/art of acting per se. I think Anthony's struggles represents a broader existential question, a deeply buried uncertainty about identity. There's a key, I feel, in his relationship with his ex-wife Britta (Signe Hasso). He says that he never would have or could have become a good actor without her inspiration. And at another point he explicitly states that his extreme identification with his roles began when he married her. I'm not sure what to make of this but it seems important to me, especially because it's his obsession with her and jealousy of her that ultimately pushes him over the top. Perhaps the implication is that Anthony put himself in danger in the first place by entering into a serious relationship. Marriage implies a "union of the soul" in the traditional conception. It's unusual that the male and female protagonists are divorced at the beginning of the film. It's not completely unprecedented (Hawks' comedy "His Girl Friday" springs to mind, among others), but it is unusual and probably significant, especially in light of the fact that they do not end up resolving their romantic separation. In a way, the film could be implying that jealousy is another form of self-love. | positive |
I lived in Tokyo for 7 months. Knowing the reality of long train commutes, bike rides from the train station, soup stands, and other typical scenes depicted so well, certainly added to my own appreciation for this film which I really, really liked. There are aspects of Japanese life in this film painted with vivid colors but you don't have to speak Japanese to enjoy this movie. Director Suo's tricks were subtle for the most part; I found his highlighting the character called Tamako Tamura with a soft filter, making her sublime, a tiny bit contrived but most of the directors tricks were so gentle that I was fully pulled in and just danced with his characters. Or cried. Or laughed aloud. Wonderful. A+. | positive |
*The whereabouts of Al Capone<br /><br />*Who shot JFK?<br /><br />*Cynthia Gibb lands the part of "Gypsy" in the TV remake<br /><br />These are some of the great unsolved mysteries of the 20th century. How else can I say it, except, I thought she was unredeemingly awful. Mannequin mannerisms, poor reactionary acting (ie: that blank, stoic stare while he co-star in the scene speaks)and a singing voice that most voice coaches would rate "mediocre". But she is stunningly gorgeous and after all, wasn't that what the Gypsy character is all about? Cashing in on her looks cuz' she didn't cut the mustard in the talent department?<br /><br />As for the rest... Bette is fantastic. Whether or not she's playing herself or playing Mama Rose, it works either way, and I for one thought Rosalind Russell was as exciting as drywall in the original. Peter Riegart as "Herbie" is the perfect understated foil to Bette's over-the-top Mama, and he's the medium-temperature porridge between Midler's hot dish and Gibb's stone cold mush. Riegart is juuuust right.<br /><br />One final holler to the man responsible for decades to come of Cher jokes: Bob Mackie. Drag queens would kill for the glitz and glamour on display here. Everything's coming up sequins and bugle beads!<br /><br /> | positive |
As did others in this forum, when "Fobidden Planet" was offered in 1956, I rushed to see it. This story is an interesting phenomenon I suggest because young, old, male, female, sci-fi experts and people who find such fare 'way out" all can follow and enjoy this film's story and plot lines very well. This is the first movie set on a planet other than Earth in the 20th Century other than serials such as "Flash Gordon". Leslie Nielsen was vocally a bit weak for his role, at that time, but Walter Pigeon, Marvin Miller, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson, Earl Holliman and especially Warren Stevens all acquitted themselves very well. There are so many visual splendors in this one, it's hard to choose a favorite from the film's scenes. The approach to Altair-4, the starship itself, the landing on the planet's alien surface, the descent via extensor stairs, the first view of the landscape, the approach of the rocket-sled, Dr. Morbius's house seen from without and from within, the underground complex and its wonders, the setup of the weaponry, the battle with the monster, the final approach of the unseen destroyer,the escape from the doomed planet--all these scenes are etched into the viewer's mind because we discover them along with the participants. Veteran Cyril Hume's literate script was filmed intelligently by long-time director Fred McLeod Wilcox with clarity and imagination. it is a shock to realize there's no music at all; the film is carried by the words, the actors and the mystery-revelation storyline. It can be watched again and again with pleasure--I have been doing so for nearly fifty years. Until this famous and well-loved film was created, no film had tried to imagine a world beyond Earth; and for decades afterward, ships kept crashing back on the planet--as if the writers' imaginations were failing and causing the crashes. Still the best, many say. That says something negative about this nation's so-called intellectual leaders' imaginations--and something very positive indeed I suggest about those who made this gem. | positive |
Every year there's one can't-miss much-anticipated red-hot big-budget title with the right combination of star, director and subject matter that fails miserably at the box-office. This year it was Superman Returns. In 1982 it was Blade Runner. In 1957 it was Billy Wilder's The Spirit of St Louis, a film that had everything - top director, huge star, best-selling true story about an American hero - except enough of an audience to cover its costs. Maybe the public still remembered Lucky Lindy's anti-Semitism and his loud admiration for Nazi Germany's achievements before the war (neither covered in the film, which ends with his arrival in Paris before the legend got too tarnished). Maybe because they thought they knew the story or that it was just going to be one guy stuck in a cockpit for two hours. Certainly Wilder and co-writer Wendell Mayes are aware of the dramatic pitfalls of Lindbergh's relatively uneventful flight, alternating between a well-executed flashback structure to key points in his life and the build-up to the flight itself. Once the film is airborne, it's both surprising and suspenseful, finding genuine drama in his attempts to stay awake and to navigate without proper instruments.<br /><br />It also builds up a quite remarkable sense of dread that's unlike anything else in Wilder's filmography, allied to a real sense of the epic: shots like the ominous storm clouds over the hanger the dark dawn before the flight carry a real chill of foreboding to them. Even the typically muted and problematic WarnerColor adds to the film rather than detracts from it. Along with the superb use of CinemaScope, there's a remarkable score from Franz Waxman: majestic, soaring but filled with understated menace, and cleverly used as part of the fabric of the film rather than mere musical accompaniment. The film does lose points for implying, though never actually saying outright, that this was a race to be the first to fly the Atlantic - in fact, Lindbergh was the third man to fly across the Atlantic after almost completely forgotten Brits Alcock and Brown's astonishing flight eight years earlier - but it's still a remarkably tense and engrossing adventure story that deserved the success it never found. | positive |
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars. | negative |
A shift in outlook is neccesary to enjoy modern British films, one that somehow allows them to be seen in their own right and for their own qualities rather than by the criteria that American films are judged. Britfilm has to try hard to be gritty and finds it hard to make it, but at warmth British films can lord it over their otherwise overwhelming competitor.<br /><br />This film fails not in its content but only in attaching itself to the predeccesor, so allowing it to be all to easily seen as the work of star and director somewhere near the end of their tethers. It's a couple of decades later, Gregory teaching and this time with two girls on his mind. He teaches at his school railing against human rights abuses. When students he's fired up find abuses in their midst he must face whether he's just all talk.<br /><br />This is a subversive film in that there's not the usual worldly character of any American movie that you expect to do whatever he does, but a naive man boy who may still put everything on the line for principles. Maybe. It's certainly no protest-by-numbers though, being too warm. Where U.S. film may seem realistic because they're urban and gritty, this and other British films of recent years - those that don't try to match America for visceral thrills - are real because British humour reveals truths. | positive |
Caught the tail end of this movie channel surfing through the cable movie channels, and was so intrigued I sought out the next showing.<br /><br />I really didn't know what to expect after reading the program summary, but I came away from this movie feeling quite disturbed and distressed. It also gave me as adult who attended high school in the 80's, a little better insight into what our kids have to contend with these days.<br /><br />The fact that you don't see the shooting only adds to the chillness of the plot. To see both child and adult alike struggle to comprehend and come to terms with the senseless shootings was at times overwhelming. And will admit that I shed quite a few tears throughout.<br /><br />On the whole, not a movie that I would seek out to what, however I am sure glad I did see it. | positive |
In reflecting on this movie I can think of two others to help put it in perspective. One relatively forgettable but covering the same geography, is Coup de Torchon, the other thousands of miles away and much larger in scope is the unforgettable Indochine. Claire Denis has produced a movie that has some of the grand underpinnings of Indochine, the complex and unspoken relationship between France and her colonial subjects.<br /><br />I was struck with the dignity of Potee, with his struggle to maintain his dignity among his peers and with his white bosses. I was also struck with the love/hate relationship between him and Aimee. It is the latter that gives the film its driving force, it is the latter that links this movie to Indochine.<br /><br />One never is sure what motivates everyone, though some of the characters are required of a remembrance of colonialism. It is this cynical side of the story that ties it to Coup de Torchon. Theirs is the more scandalous story, perhaps even more interesting in a depraved way, but Denis gives us a remembrance of how it was with all the tension and unresolved relationships.<br /><br />The American black who gives the grown up France a ride in the beginning and end of the movie offers yet another interesting side to the confusion that we in the Western world have when we look at Africa. He says that when he came he wanted to call everyone brother. He was coming home, but they just thought him to be a little daft. France, the character and the girl, grew up in Cameroon, but neither fully understands what it is even though they can remember how it was.<br /><br /> | positive |
I love the way he experiments. Ab Tak Chappan was a thrill to watch just as much Satya and company was. Jatin the new comer also lived up to his role and Nana Patekar was at his best. Suchak was really irritating but I think he fit the character he was playing - he had really ugly teeth. The story has a great progress and no songs in the movie makes it better. I only wish he signs up Urmila for his other up coming movies. I think they are the best director and actress combination I have seen. I have not seen Naach as yet but I am looking forward for it. I for some reason don't find Antra Maali that exciting to watch on the screen - unlike Urmila. | positive |
It's 1982, Two years after the Iranian Embassy Siege which involved the dramatic SAS Rescue from the Balconys, and with a War with Argentina over the Falkland Islands currently taking place, what better film to make than a Gung-Ho "SAS" Film that re-creates the Iranian Hostage siege, whilst using Britains Number one action hero of the day, Lewis Collins. throw in Edward Woodward and a few other Well known actors and you've got a winner on your hands?...Well maybe not! The film itself doesn't make the situation serious enough, whilst the acting is quite second rate. it's like a Movie long episode of "The Professionals", but without the formula. This film goes nowhere fast and is quite predictable. Maybe Cubby Brocoli watched this film and decided to ditch Lewis Collins as a Touted James Bond Replacement for Roger Moore. Watch it if your a fan of Lewis Collins or SAS stuff in General, if not, save your time. | negative |
Edward Montagne's Tattooed Stranger is supposed to play like a crime thriller with a little film noir mixed in for flavor. Instead, it's a poorly acted, witless look into low budget and uninspired film making. The plot is absurd and the acting excruciatingly stiff and amateurish. John Miles, who had a rather thin resume in the industry, grins and guffaws throughout, and everyone else acts with the same verve as characters in a government-made filmstrip about driver safety. The movie anticipates shows like 'Leave it to Beaver' and 'Father Knows Best' in its unnaturally wholesome view of New York in 1950. Why, the viewer doesn't even get to see anyone light up a cig until some shapely woman is interviewed in a flophouse halfway through the movie. The only thing the movie has going for it (besides its brevity) is the excellent location shots coordinated by William Steiner. The low budget of the film works in the cinematographer's favor, as the viewer is treated to well-framed shots of New York City's interiors and expansive exteriors. Unless you wish to enjoy the film for the choice of settings and camera angles, I suggest watching practically any other movie. | negative |
In London, the Venetian Carla Borin (Yuliya Mayarchuk) is searching an apartment to share with her beloved boyfriend Matteo (Jarno Berardi). She meets the lesbian real estate agent Moira (Francesca Nunzi) and rents a large apartment. When the jealous Matteo finds some pictures and letters from her former lover Bernard (Mauro Lorenz) in Venice, he hangs up the phone and the upset and amoral Carla has a brief affair with Moira and intercourse with an acquaintance in a party. When Matteo comes to London, he concludes that his lust for Carla is more important than his jealousy and her behavior.<br /><br />"Transgredire" is another "soft porn" of the sick director Tinto Brass with a shallow and ridiculous story where every situation is a motive to expose the intimate parts of the women in the cast. The amateurish camera exposes the body of the beautiful Yuliya Mayarchuk in every possible angle and her character is abused, touched and licked in every part of her nice body, but without showing explicit penetration. This flick is only recommended to fans of this director and as a voyeur experience seeing Yuliya Mayarchuk naked in erotic situations. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Pervertida" ("The Pervert") | negative |
Shah rukh khan plays an obbsessed lover who would go to any lengths to get his lady. Juhi chawla does a wonderful job of making the best of her character and sunny deol plays the hero and action man. this film is very good and i'd reecommend it to anyone. | positive |
This is one of the best movies on the French Revolution ever produced. Being a person well versed in the the period I was amazed at the level of detail. The costumes are spot on. Even the detailed little day to day items such as ink wells, serving plates etc are all perfect. As an American living in France who has access to the sites in the movie through his membership in various historical associations such as the Napoleonic Alliance I can not over state how impressed I was with the visual accuracy of the film.<br /><br />The dialogue where known is virtual quotations and the where not recorded is in character. I was extremely pleased with this movie and am disappointed that it is not out on DVD yet. This is how historical drama should be done. Must see.... | positive |
I went to see this movie twice within a week and can only sum it up in one word (which I normally don't use lightly): Wonderful! In my view, the best movie ever made. Who deserves Oscars and other awards if not this Swedish crew who have created cinematic perfection in the last scenes of the film, when everything that is said (and left unsaid) throughout the story is drawn together? Just as the character of Daniel Dareus evokes so many sentiments and long repressed feelings within the people around him, the movie does the same to its viewers: You walk out with your head abuzz and your heart feeling full. Great stuff! Next time you ask yourself "what is the meaning of life", perhaps think about how you feel after a sumptuous experience like As it is in Heaven: Happy, content, fulfilled. To say it with Virginia Woolf's Mrs Dalloway: "Such moments are enough". | positive |
Make up your own mind. Personally I found it as much fun as receiving a spinal tap from Stevie Wonder. No offense Mr. Wonder. Maybe it is comedy, but I just found it stupid. Not exactly the first two choices to babysit your kids; Wheeler(Seann William Scott)and Danny(Paul Rudd),two energy drink salesmen, to avert jail time are court ordered to mentor two kids from a development center run by Gayle Sweeny(Jane Lynch). One of the misfits is Ronnie(Bobb'e J. Thompson), a foul-mouthed fifth grader and the other is Augie(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a bashful young man that roll plays in a fantasy medieval world. Wheeler and Danny desperately try to give their charges an invaluable inside view of life, love and heavy metal. Lynch is hilarious with her dry wit analogies. Supporting are: Elizabeth Banks, Ken Jeongg, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Amanda Righetti and David Wain. | negative |
From the opening sequence, filled with black and white shots reminiscent of Gordan Parks photos, this film draws the viewer into a feeling of artistic renaissance. The backdrop of a poetry cafe aptly named, "The Sanctuary," provides just that. The jazz that permeates the film and the cinematography will seduce you.<br /><br />This story of love actually allows love to grow, to evolve, and ultimately mature, a rarity in hollywood. Everyone can identify with some stage of their journey towards each other. This tale of two artist that just can't quite get it together sparked a debate amongst its viewers. Should she have gone away? Should he have stopped her? Who knows...?<br /><br />Starring Larenz Tate(Darius Lovehall), and Nia Long(Nina Moseley) with a scene stealing performance by Isiah Washington(Savon) and Lisa Nicole Carson(Josie Nichols) as the ultimate best friend, this film is a romantic jewel.<br /><br />See this one with someone you love (wink). | positive |
Greta Garbo's American film debut is an analogy of how our lives can be swept off course by fate and our actions, as in a torrent, causing us to lose a part of ourselves along the way.<br /><br />Greta plays Leonora, a poor peasant girl in love with Ricardo Cortez's character Don Rafael, a landowner. Ricardo is in love with her too, but is too easily influenced by his domineering mother. Leonora ends up homeless and travels to Paris, where she becomes a famous opera singer and develops the reputation for being a loose woman. In reality, part of her attitude is bitterness over Rafael's abandonment.<br /><br />She returns to her home to visit her family and eventually confronts Rafael. Surprisingly, no one knows that she's the famous La Brunna, and Garbo acts up her role as the diva she truly was and re prised with such cool haughtiness in her later portrayals.<br /><br />Ricardo Cortez reminds one a lot of Valentino in looks in this part, and he was groomed to be a Valentino clone by MGM, though he never thought he could be in reality and he was right. He is believable in an unsympathetic part as a weak willed Mama's boy, and allows himself to age realistically but comically at the end of the movie. He fails to win Leonora when she returns home, and later when he follows her, his courage is undermined.<br /><br />This movie is beautifully shot, with brilliant storm sequences and the sets depicting Spain at the time are authentic looking. There are also some fine secondary performances by old timers Lucien Littlefield, Tully Marshall, and Mack Swain.<br /><br />Although this is a story of lost love and missed chances, I don't think Leonora and Rafael would have been happy together, as he needed a more traditional wife and she was very much a career woman, and I don't think would have been happy in a small village. The ending is true to life and pulls no punches.<br /><br />See this one as Garbo's American film debut and a precursor of things to come | positive |
I watched this movie only coz it was expected to be yet another entertainer by David Dhawan. <br /><br />Bad Bad comeback by David Dhawan.he has made lots of funny movies in past which made no sense but none of them was a crap bag!! What a waste of talent and beauty it was?Donno why actors agree on doin movie like this.<br /><br />There was not a whit of practicality in this movie.The movie is below par and not at all justifies the standard and potential Bollywood has.<br /><br />The only thing worth watching in this movie was katrina but we don't need to watch a movie like this to see her! Being a remake of Hollywood flick Hitch its clear that bollywood directors cant even make a proper remake. I consider this to be the worst ever movie I hv seen. Awful 1/10 | negative |
I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.<br /><br />She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM<br /><br />Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.<br /><br />Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.<br /><br />A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.<br /><br />This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.<br /><br />What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.<br /><br />Why do they make movies like this in the first place?<br /><br />Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic) | negative |
You have to see it to believe it! Directors Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield have done a thing really great, it is a 10 out of 10 so I can not believe that other user of this web had rate it so poor, unless they were expecting to see just a normal movie, with people, love scenes, and so on. I am also convinced that this kind of documentaries are an excellent way to wake up us in order to save our beautiful planet. Finally, it has nothing to do with Al Gore's documentary-movie "An inconvenient truth" mainly made of long monologues, painfully and with "truths" not always accurate, as many scientists have pointed already. <br /><br />The best thing you can do on earth is not miss Earth. | positive |
"Red Rock West" was far and away one of the best suspense thrillers of the 90's with a superb script (by John and Rick Dahl) that kept you guessing throughout and on the edge of your seat for most of the film. It was brilliantly directed by John Dahl and featured a marvellous cast including Nicolas Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle and especially J. T. Walsh (in a memorable performance) making this a riveting and captivating thriller not to be missed. The film never had much publicity on release (in fact I first caught up with it on TV) and is therefore one of those special little gems that you have to seek out but this unique film is now slowly gaining a cult following.<br /><br />Nicolas Cage is Michael Williams who is broke and out of work when he finds himself in the small town of Red Rock. Mistaken for a contract killer named Lyle from Dallas he is shocked to be offered $10,000 to murder the wife of bar owner Wayne Brown (the excellent J. T. Walsh). He plays along with the plan and decides he should go and warn Brown's wife Suzanne (Lara Flynn Boyle) but then the plot thickens and there are so many twists, turns and surprises - and double dealings - that Cage is thrown from one crisis to another and finds himself trapped in a terrible situation he can't drag himself out of! Then just to complicate matters even further the real Lyle turns up to carry out the contract killing (played by everyone's favourite heavy Dennis Hopper). When Hopper discovers what has happened he goes after Cage but no one could forsee the surprising events that follow.<br /><br />Some favourite lines from the film:<br /><br />Nicolas Cage (to Lara Flynn Boyle): "I hate to see an innocent woman get hurt but it's an awful lot of money".<br /><br />J. T. Walsh (to Cage): "Michael Williams. Well, Michael, you're going to be spending some time with us till we get to the bottom of this".<br /><br />Boyle (to Cage): "You're not a killer?". Cage: "That's right, no. But the guy I'm supposed to be just rode into town so you gotta get out of here".<br /><br />Boyle (to Cage): "O.K. How you're going to explain impersonating a hired killer and taking $10,000 from my husband?".<br /><br />An extraordinarily entertaining little thriller (just 98 minutes) with a storyline that never lets up and powerful acting by all the principals. Any film featuring J. T. Walsh is O.K. in my book and "Red Rock West" was one of his best. How sad it was that this exceptional actor's career was cut tragically short by a heart attack in 1998. The most prolific period for "film noir" was without any doubt the forties but "Red Rock West" is a good modern example of the genre and has jumped right into my "Top Ten" list of all time favourite films. I look forward to more like this from director John Dahl. 10/10. Clive Roberts.<br /><br /> | positive |
The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer). | negative |
I avoided this film as a boy because I thought it would be boring
no fights or shooting, cops, robbers, cowboys or Indians. It was definitely not a cool film to like. So I didn't see TRC until I was in my twenties and found it one of the most beautiful, captivating films I have seen. All the actors deliver the characterisations perfectly and each emotion is drawn from the viewer scene by scene. The filming and direction are deceptively simple but feel so natural and drew me completely into the story. My two favourite scenes are Bobbie's birthday party and the scene on the station platform near the end, directed and edited to perfection. The quality and phrasing of Jenny Agutter's voice when she calls: 'Daddy! My Daddy!' wrenches emotion from the viewer. Tears are welling in my eyes as I think of it.<br /><br />This adaptation isn't just a movie it is a piece of precious art, as well as being the perfect example of what all film makers should be striving to achieve
creation of an emotional experience. | positive |
I am continuously amazed at the US networks. What is the matter with them? Yet another very very promising series axed after just 15 episodes and we are left not knowing what the hell happens to everyone. I really thoroughly enjoyed this show and am so annoyed that we will never find out what happens to the characters and the 'monsters' from the deep. This show had everything. Humour, suspense, action. What more could you want. Why oh why did the pull the plug on this? It just doesn't make sense. Buffy went on for 7 series as did Charmed and enjoyable as they were, Surface, Invasion and Dead Like Me were even better. Just because a show does not get terribly high ratings doesn't mean it's rubbish and if they gave it a bit longer probably more people would catch on to it and they would end up with a big hit on their hands. One season just does not give it enough time to catch on and the networks are far to eager to pull the plug. They should learn that like fine wines and cheeses, they take time to mature.<br /><br />Bring Surface and Invasion back - P L E A S E !!!!!!! | positive |
The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.<br /><br />I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.<br /><br />I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.<br /><br />Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.<br /><br />Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story. | negative |
As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.<br /><br />THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.<br /><br />The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.<br /><br />Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.<br /><br />I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story. | negative |
I first saw this movie when it originally came out. I was about 9 yrs. old and found this movie both highly entertaining and very frightening and unlike any other movie I had seen up until that time.<br /><br />BASIC PLOT: An expedition is sent out from Earth to the fourth planet of Altair, a great mainsequence star in constellation Aquilae to find out what happened to a colony of settlers which landed twenty years before and had not been heard from since.<br /><br />THEME: An inferior civilization (namely ours) comes into contact with the remains of a greatly advanced alien civilization, the Krell-200,000 years removed. The "seed" of destruction from one civilization is being passed on to another, unknowingly at first. The theme of this movie is very much Good vs. Evil.<br /><br />I first saw this movie with my brother when it came out originally. I was just a boy and the tiger scenes really did scare me as did the battle scenes with the unseen Creature-force. I was also amazed at just how real things looked in the movie.<br /><br />What really captures my attention as an adult though is the truth of the movie "forbidden knowledge" and how relevant this will be when we do (if ever) come into contact with an advanced (alien) civilization far more developed than we ourselves are presently. Advanced technology and responsibility seem go hand in hand. We must do the work for ourselves to acquire the knowledge along with the wisdom of how to use advanced technology. This is, in my opinion, the great moral of the movie.<br /><br />I learned in graduate school that "knowledge is power" is at best, in fact, not correct! Knowledge is "potential" power depending upon how it is applied (... if it is applied at all.) [It's not what you know, but how you use what you know!]<br /><br />The overall impact of this movie may well be realized sometime in Mankind's own future. That is knowledge in and of itself is not enough, we must, MUST have the wisdom that knowledge depends on to truly control our own destiny OR we will end up like the Krell in the movie-just winked-out.<br /><br />Many thanks to those who responded to earlier versions of this article with comments and corrections, they are all very much appreciated!! I hope you are as entertained by this story as much as I have been over the past 40+ years ....<br /><br />Rating: 10 out 10 stars | positive |
Me and a friend rented this movie because it sounded really good. But we were wrong. First of the acting....wow...the acting was the worst, the effects were really bad as well, it seemed like a film a college kid made. The plot was pretty good, but it'd been done. The thing that ruined the movies the most were the actors. The main guy was the worst actor ever...it's a shame I'm even calling him an actor...The only good thing about this movie was it was so bad it was funny...so if you want a good laugh see it....but other than that...stay far away from this one. I usually love B list movies and such, but this one... I do not know how it was passed to even be put on video...this one is the worst I've seen..and I've seen some bad ones. | negative |
This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen
I don't really know why
Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.<br /><br />I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way
I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't
Just don't waste your time on this one
| negative |
No surprise except in how quickly ABC reacted to the dismal ratings. According to published reports (Variety) the show garnered the worst ratings in the history of the ABC television network.<br /><br />And I quote: ABC's music talent competition "The One" opened Tuesday night to cancel-me-now ratings.<br /><br />The article went on to say that the show received a "shockingly low 1.1 rating/3 share in adult 18-49 and 3.08 million viewers overall."<br /><br />That makes it the weakest premiere for any reality show on any network and also below all series bows in ABC history.<br /><br />From the first moment I saw the commercials for this I knew it would fail. We don't need another American Idol clone. But ABC should have given this show a fair chance to succeed. | negative |
How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating. | negative |
When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.<br /><br />A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...<br /><br />Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws. | negative |
This is simply the epitome of what a made for TV movie should be. It was a lazy Sunday afternoon when my wife and I were in grad school that we stumbled upon this. The cheesy acting. The poorly written script. The good ol' boys. The ridiculous, yet somehow obvious, cliché, and banal premise. The riding in pickup trucks with your propped-up wife-corpse. It has it all.<br /><br />You will meet familiar characters: gold-digging hussy, stupid rich boy who wants to make it on his own, friends-who-know-better, Daddy who knows better but drives son away. And the wife-corpse. Propped up. In a pick-up. <br /><br />Wow: and the title. Several things in our lives have been "Texas Tragedies" since watching this beauty. Everyone involved in its creation deserves a medal. | positive |
I went to see this thinking it would be a great comedy and a comeback for Robin Williams, but when I saw it I realized I had bee lied to by advertisers as this is more drama than comedy, although it has a few really good laughs in it. It felt like I was watching two movies. One was a funny romp with Robin Williams that should have been the whole basin for the movie anyway, but you also get a techno thriller movie with political angst in the middle. I really don't know how to classify this film. But I can tell you it was good and I did laugh, not as much as I had hoped, but at least Williams is back in the right direction. See this but know before going it is not all comedy and is a little intense. | positive |
My expectations were quite high for this film. Everyone I know who saw this film at the cinema told me that everyone there stayed through the credits because they were so touched. My expectations could not have been any higher, anything short of wonderful would have disappointed me.<br /><br />I was anything but disappointed by this movie. I loved how it dealt with difficult subjects without going through the usual steps a Hollywood film tends to include. In this film characters worked through problems they had had for decades, they worked through prejudicm, they learned to open up. But it did not come easily, and not just by singing a song or two. It was painful, it took arguments, it took confrontations. It felt like real life.<br /><br />One scene that really stuck out to me was the scene in which Gabriella sings her song. Helen Sjöholm is one of my favorite singers, her voice is lovely, and you could tell that she was not just lip-syncing to a previous recording during filming (which I often find in other movies), she really sang with her whole body and soul. You could feel what Gabriella was feeling in that scene. Had this movie been made in Hollywood her song would most likely have been sung toward the end, and it would have made her husband open his eyes and see the error of his ways, as well as making the other people in the village realise a thing or two. Instead it came halfway through, and it did not bring any solutions. Her husband did not become overwhelmed and realise what he's putting her through, and it didn't seem to make anyone else in the village more open minded. It was beautiful, it was pure and it was touching but it did not magically solve all her problems. That felt real to me, that's probably what would have happened in real life. The whole movie felt like real life to me, nothing neatly wrapped up but everything with a sense of joy and happiness. You rarely find a movie which feels so realistic.<br /><br />There were a few things that bothered me, but hey, no movie is perfect. If you haven't already you should go see "As it is in Heaven" and be filled with a joy for life, a sense of hope and the feeling that you've been touched on a level movies rarely reach. You will be sad, pained, happy and a dozen other emotions.<br /><br />Someone once said that if every person in the world sang in a choir there would be no more wars. Having seen this film I might have to agree. | positive |
This movie was groundbreaking in the former Soviet Union because it was the first movie released there that contained a real sex scene. However, the movie can be considered great for many reasons, not the least of which is its true, gritty portrayal of disillusionment and pain in the family of a working class Soviet family. I would definitely recommend it. | positive |
I didn't like this movie for many reasons - VERY BORING! It was interesting how they thought what the future would look like in this, but seriously I was very bored watching this. There was hardly any action. Although the Classical orchestra soundtrack was very nice. The visuals were very creative. Whenever this movie pops on TV, I feel like changing the station instantly. Not because it is a bad movie, just because I know what I am in for when watching this - complete and total boredom. It is a movie I saw when I was young, but I never got into the science fiction thing... because it simply wasn't real. Just like this movie - very unrealistic. I never understood half the movie anyway. | negative |
Surprisingly good. The acting was fun, the screenplay was fun, the music was cheesie fun, the plot was stupendously fun. This was a fun movie to watch and to give your brain some rest. Parts of the plot and quotes I found to be very creative. 7 out of 10. Actually for what it was, it would deserve a 10 out of 10. You are not supposed to compare this to an arthouse film or to a bloody slasher film. | positive |
We just saw this movie in Austin Texas at the Alamo South Lamar yesterday afternoon. It had me laughing out loud many times! The scene about Albert Einstein's thoughts on humanity hit me over and over and I couldn't stop laughing. It's too bad it's not in more theaters, I know a lot of friends that are dieing to see this movie! "Welcome to Costco, I love you." ... great work to all involved! Also, if you see it, make sure to stay until the end of the credits as well! I'm going to take my family to see it again this weekend for sure! If you're a fan of OFFICE SPACE and BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD then you have to go see this movie. It's a classic and no one knows that it's out! So if you're in the mood to see something funny this weekend, definitely check it out. | positive |
A sadly inferior precursor to "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" this film drags on and on, occasionally reviving your interest only to put you through more selfindulgent maundering and obvious but patently overdone plot points.<br /><br />It may list as 111 minutes but feels like three hours of painfully wasted time. | negative |
This film had about everything one could wish when viewing it originally, at the end of the 1960's decade. It was immensely entertaining, and provided a contemporary view of the many changes which had occurred during that period - and were still ongoing - in terms of the Black Power movement, Vietnam, and the volatile movement which followed the quieter, preceding postwar 1950's.<br /><br />All of this and one of the funniest films, then or now.<br /><br />Viewing it for the second time recently, I was surprised to find it as engrossing as when seen originally. Its humor is as funny, and its message as strong.<br /><br />And in viewing it now, you get all of this, while at the same time gaining the added enjoyment of its being a "period piece," and a superb chronicling of its this historic, turbulent time. | positive |
Writer-director Emilio Estevez shows a definite lack of talent here with this un-redeemable, supposed comedy. The script is completely hopeless, let alone the fact that it is unoriginal and badly worked. The comedy just does not work. When Estevez isn't using poor taste sex jokes, he is borrowing used gags and re-doing them very poorly. You would think the teaming of Estevez and brother Charlie Sheen would be cool...but...it isn't.<br /><br />The entire cast is uninspired and unfunny, never managing to raise a laugh, and barely coaxing a smile from their audience. Do yourself a favour and leave this one on the video shelf.<br /><br />Thursday, June 25, 1992 - Video | negative |
Really an amazing pile of pap! <br /><br />A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary.<br /><br />The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.<br /><br />Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.<br /><br />Never, ever, ever again. | negative |
This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave. | negative |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.