review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
Very few movies have had the impact on American culture the way Urban Cowboy has. Thank god it was temporary. But UC is almost in a class by itself as one of those flicks that when you're flipping channels at 3:00AM you just can't take your eyes off....my top three are Animal House and Walking Tall BTW but that's beside the point. I remember Urban Cowboy hit the theaters and overnite there were honkytonks being opened on every corner, men were sporting cowboy hats with their penny loafers, and if you didnt know how to two-step you were considered a social moron! Personally I think it's a great movie. Travolta really surprised me on the heels of SatNiteFever. Who'd a thunk. He's actually believable too. The soundtrack is awesome. Too bad Charlene Tilton, of TV's Dallas fame ruined Johnny Lee's career cause that guy was just terrific. The show stealer here is Scott Glenn as the greaser ex-con redneck cowboy. And I ain't got nothing against greaser ex-con cowboys semi-being one myself, but I've always envied what I feel to be the greatest power line of all time...."Pack-at S*#t!" Sort of like Clint's "make my day." And watching him slap Sissy around is the closest thing I'll see to my Julia Roberts fantasy so..... Like I said, beautiful. 9/10 | positive |
As much as I have enjoyed the Hanzo the Razor movies, three is definitely enough: 'Who's Got The Gold?', the final adventure for the Japanese lawman with the impressive package, is a fairly enjoyable piece of Pinku cinema, but offers little new in terms of ideas whilst taking a big step backwards as far as outrageousness is concerned.<br /><br />The film opens with the appearance of a female ghost, and looks as though it is going to explore supernatural territory, something which might have taken the series in an interesting new direction; unfortunately, after the spook turns out to be nothing but a Scooby Doo-style ruse (cooked up by a corrupt treasury official keen to keep people away from the lake where he is hiding stolen gold), director Yoshio Inoue is content to recycle familiar elements from the first two films, the result being a rather stale affair.<br /><br />Once again, Hanzo heads an investigation that requires him to interrogate women through the use of his mighty penis, slice up his enemies, and abuse his superiors. On the way, we get wild orgies, good-natured rape (Hanzo forces himself on women who wind up appreciating his willfulness), and bloody sword-fights.<br /><br />If you've already seen and appreciated the first two films, you might as well watch this instalment to complete the set, but be warned, this is probably the least satisfying one of them all.<br /><br />6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb. | positive |
"The Beguiled" is a strange work among Clint Eastwood's oeuvre. By 1971 he had become well known as the star of action movies, not only Westerns (the genre in which he first made his name) but also war films (such as "Where Eagles Dare") and cop thrillers (such as "Coogan's Bluff"). Yet although "The Beguiled" takes place during wartime (the American Civil War), and was made by Don Siegel who had earlier directed Eastwood in "Coogan's Bluff" and was later the same year to direct him in "Dirty Harry", it is not an action film in the traditional sense. In most of his previous films Eastwood had played an active role, but here his role is largely passive- his character, Sergeant John McBurney, is a wounded fugitive forced to rely upon the charity of women in order to survive. Even while serving with his unit, McBurney played no active part in the conflict; he is a Quaker, whose religious principles forbid him to bear arms, and was serving with the Union forces as a medical orderly. <br /><br />The film is set in Louisiana towards the end of the war and starts with the injured McBurney being discovered by a young girl named Amy and brought back to her boarding school. The school is a small one, with only two teachers and a handful of girls. Although some of the girls are ardent supporters of the Confederate cause and want to hand him over to the authorities, the headmistress, Martha Farnsworth, decides to shelter him and tend him, fearing that his injuries are likely to prove fatal should he be sent to one of the Confederacy's notoriously harsh prison camps. <br /><br />Although McBurney scrupulously follows the teachings of his religion as regards pacifism, he is not so scrupulous when it comes to following its teachings on the sin of fornication, and as he starts to recover he makes full use of his opportunity to exercise his charms on both the staff and the older girls, and he wins the affections of number of them, including Miss Farnsworth, her assistant Edwina and Carol, one of the older girls. Even twelve year old Amy appears to have a sort of childish crush on him. In the sexually repressed atmosphere of the all-female school his presence gives rise to jealousy and hatred, and Miss Farnsworth, rejected in favour of the sluttish Carol, plots a terrible revenge. (Interestingly, the one female to resist McBurney's blandishments is Hallie, Miss Farnsworth's black slave, even though he tries to win her round by pointing out that he is fighting to free people like her). <br /><br />"The Beguiled" has been described as an anti-war film, but this seems to me to be a misconception. The film is not really about the rights and wrongs of the Civil War or of war in general. The only acts of violence we see are perpetrated by non-combatants, and they are motivated by a desire for personal revenge, not by zeal for the Confederate cause. It would be more accurate to see the film as a drama about the psychological stresses that can be caused by the peculiar circumstances of war. <br /><br />At the beginning the school, set in a beautiful old antebellum mansion, seems like an island of peace amid the war. The building is in the Classical style, associated with order, harmony and restraint, but the story that unfolds within its walls is one of disorder, passion and violence, qualities associated with the Gothic school of writing which in the 19th century was often regarded as the antithesis of Classicism. The film can be seen as falling within what has been called the "Southern Gothic" tradition in American film and literature. <br /><br />The film was not a great hit at the box office, possibly because Eastwood was cast so much against type. It is not perhaps his best film, but it did show that he could expand his range and play something other than action heroes. (In "Play Misty for Me", his first film as director made the following year, he was again to play a "passive" character in danger from a vindictive female). There are some very good performances from the female members of the cast, particularly Geraldine Page as Martha Farnsworth, outwardly a respectable middle-aged spinster but inwardly a woman of strong passions. (There are hints that she may have been having an affair with a man whom she passed off as her brother). There are also good contributions from Elizabeth Hartman as the shy, repressed Edwina, who falls in love with McBurney and rejects the idea of revenge and from young Pamelyn Ferdin as Amy. (Amy is an animal lover- a key moment in the film comes when McBurney kills her pet turtle- so it is interesting that in later life Ferdin became an animal rights activist). The one character I was less keen on was Jo Ann Harris's Carol who seemed too modern, like a swinging seventies chick transported back in time to the 1860s. The film is notable for the emotionally intense "hothouse" atmosphere which Siegel brings to it. This will not be a film which is to everyone's taste; some will find it too overwrought and melodramatic, and some have found it misogynistic. (Judith Crist called it a film for "woman haters and sadists"). Others, however, may find it a compelling psychological drama. 7/10 | positive |
Other commenters have described this movie as "classic 1950s SciFi" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.<br /><br />Nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.<br /><br />Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.<br /><br />Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says "Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones." He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define "animal", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an "animal" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.<br /><br />There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.<br /><br />Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science. | negative |
I think this is a great version, I came on here before, to help me find which version I should use and I went to Jane Eyre 1983 and read a comment from users comment and then helped me to get this version. I do not regret picking this version and neither will you. I tried watching all the other versions and none matched up to it,There is nothing like the book,and TRUST ME if you are reading the book you want something that is going to match up with it. When you are looking for something real and moving after you have read the book it is hard because you want something that is going to match up with that. I would say God personally led me to this version. It points to true love for a humans. I would say God's love is greater.if there is anything better, I would like to see it. but so far there is none like it! | positive |
THE AFFAIR is a very bad TV movie from the 1970s starring the then-husband-wife team of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood as hesitant lovers. She has polio and leads a reclusive existence as a pop song writer. He's an ambitious lawyer who is very outgoing and absolutely smitten with her. Their affair, such as it is, is doomed from the start, and she knows it, but goes along with it anyway. Two things to watch for if you are trapped into watching this: Wood's Jane Fonda hairdo that is never mussed, no matter what, and a tune she sings early in this dreadful flick. She sings it for four or five or six minutes, so you know it's classic padding between commercials. It also is one of the worst songs ever written, and the woman doing Wood's singing voice should have been shot and put out of her misery. Also, keep an eye out for all the peasant tops and dresses. By comparison, Wagner looks relatively timeless, with close-cropped hair and sporting a series of classic suits. | negative |
As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake/Josh, Zac/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are "nerds" that are good in school, "jocks" good in sports, "goody two shoes" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the "nothings" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house. | negative |
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old. | negative |
This production was quite well done for a television original, providing a very appropriate original slant on Swift's work. To make the frame story work well the film begins with Gulliver arriving home. Everyone who has read the book knows that will happen anyway. The frame story of the book has Gulliver's crazed confusion in sections. For example, he is horrified that he will trample little people in England because he has just returned from a land of giants. But the film has all the book sections within one long voyage. When Gulliver narrates his travels the editing cuts from England to the travel are very effective. I confess I found them intrusive and irritating at first, then they became natural. By the end, moreover, they have become a welcome addition to the story. As he tells his adventures to a larger and larger audience, more and more people listen to his compelling fantasy even though they doubt its truth. For example, his hatred of filthy Yahoos and admiration of pure logic from the fourth section comes across well when he is defending his own sanity. The intercuts between events in England and similar events or scenes in the tale is very effective. For example, ripping the cloth from the table to suggest the motion of towing a group of ships is inspired filming. The addition of Gulliver's family threatened by the lecherous doctor works well. Swift only hints at this by having the long-suffering wife protest against further voyages. It becomes a natural part of this story. The casting and acting were competent throughout. Some roles were exemplary. Omar Sharif's mad magician is superb. O'Toole's little emperor is doddering delightfully toward senility. Many specific complaints made by other writers here strike me as simple personal preference, which, after all, is what we are about here. I read the abridged version several times a year from fourth grade on. I may have escaped the complete version until a college class but have read it a few times since. And I had to start it again as I began reading about this film. While the Danson version is superior to any previous film, it does not replace the book. However, I think it will bring many readers to the book. If you have not read the book, enjoy this movie then go to the source. If you appreciate the satire in it, find Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and his "Drapier's Letters." Both are satires attacking the wretched treatment of Ireland and the Irish during Swift's time. The drapier protests cheap, inflated copper coins being dumped on Ireland. These were Wood's light weight coinage, not good for face value in paying taxes and official debts. The outcry from Swift's satire caused the coins to be sent to another mistreated British territory, the American colonies. The universal satire in Swift's book and this movie just poke fun; they cannot change human nature. Give Danson's torturous experiences a chance. I think you will find them thought provoking and entertaining. | positive |
A few yrs ago, I remember reading an essay by a feminist film theorist who briefly mentioned Rosalind Russell. This theorist wrote that the 'strength' of the 'strong women' that Rozzie R. played lay partly in their ability to stand by their man (even when he wasn't worth it).<br /><br />I thought of this essay after watching 'Crimes of Passion'.<br /><br />Kathleen Turner exudes the same strength and style as Russell in her portrayal of prostitute China Blue. She's the object of affection for two men: the loony priest played by Anthony Perkins, and a bland whitebread boy who's marriage is slowly fading. And she won't let either of them have a piece of her until ...<br /><br />I won't give away the ending - but I will say that this is ultimately Bland Whitebread Boy's fantasy. No matter how hard Ken Russell tries, he can't disguise the fact that this movie is basically a 1940s melodrama for the MTV generation. Except its retrogressive class and gender politics make those old black-and-white films look revolutionary by comparison. | negative |
this movie was terrible. i thought with all the some what decent actors, it would be better. don't waste your time. Eva longoria parker was awful. she should stick to desperate housewives. Paul Rudd is becoming a B actor. the mess he made in the movie i could never be your woman was the epitome of what i'm saying. and lake bell she was cute but definitely in need of some more acting lessons. watch just like heaven with Reese Witherspoon...it was a tad better. or any other ghost movie. you will be grateful to not have wasted your precious time. PS i love you is also a good from beyond the grave romance! time to start watching movies rated over 7 out of 10 and listen to the people who have already seen it. | negative |
96 minutes of this is cruel..and I love the old Munster's. Yes, the plot is thing; yes the lines are trite; but whoever was at the helm of this was not a fan. There is so much 'intrigue' (and I use that word with great pause) that I wonder if it's an old Starsky & Hutch episode. I lost count of the number of times I noticed that makeup had missed a spot near the collar. Refusing to acknowledge that any time had passed since the mid-60's (ludicrous) the producers simply replace Marilyn & Eddie with younger actors. Why not let them grow and age? The addition of an Addam's Family style reunion does not add to the flavor of the Halloween Party.<br /><br />Grandpa & Herman fly to Transylvania and back in a few hours (preposterous.) Sid Ceaser is the most, yes the most unbelievable character (I am including the bad robots) since he babbles an unwild combination of gibberish & yiddish but claims to be an ancient Arabic ruler. And yes, it looks like the laugh track is missing. In fact, there are several spots where there is dead air, as if the laugh track was to be inserted later. The actors seem to wait on the faux audience. It's not laughable; it's sad. Oh, and the best part! Yvonne DeCarlo has a line that just goes to show you how out of touch the writers and producers were. Marilyn says something like: "Where could Uncle Herman and Grandpa be? They could have been in an accident. They could have been hit by a car...or a train!" Lily says responds with something like: "You're Uncle Herman will be here if he has to drag himself off the train track." What's amazing about this is: Yvonne DeCarlo's husband was a stuntman in the early 60's and lost a leg and was nearly killed in a train stunt. He never recovered and this financially devastated her family. (check out Biography's fantastic review of her life and career) This line could have been easily changed to be more sensitive to her.<br /><br />If you are a real fan of the Munster's then you'll have to RENT this mess. It illustrates how some things are better left alone. Even with the (nearly) original cast, this is almost as bad as the attempted remake of the show a few years ago. | negative |
Anyone who sees this film will notice that the makers threw a lot of money at this film. It's interesting they titled it "The Hole"! The production values are good for a short film. The hole tries to look big budget and does in some ways but is hampered by the video format it was shot on. I speculate if this was shot on 35mm it would look incredible and would elevate the content somewhat. Many hollywood movies look good and that's enough for an audience regardless of story and content.<br /><br />My honest opinion, 3 out of 10 for this effort. Maybe Ishimoto's next film will deliver. | negative |
Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.<br /><br />During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this "game show" is canceled by the end of 2006. | negative |
This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad. | negative |
The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.<br /><br />Horrible. | negative |
The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing "Tower of Song" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him. | negative |
I watched this immediately after seeing HILLSIDE CANNIBALS so anything would have been an improvement . On top of that it stops me from comparing ZOMBI 3 to 28 DAYS LATER and its sequel . Unfortunately the more I watched it the more I realised how well made Danny Boyle's original was and how much this movie influenced 28 WEEKS LATER <br /><br />One can't help noticing how much the 28 franchise has dated this type of Italian horror movie . I was totally convinced ZOMBI 3 must have been made in 1980 or 1981 at the very latest - In which case I would have called my summary 28 YEARS LATER ( Geddit ? ) - but wasn't until I came to this page to find it was released in 1988 . All the production values scream that it's a low budget splatter flick from the very early part of that decade . I might have enjoyed this movie as a fifteen year old schoolboy in 1982 as would have my peers but not now <br /><br />Much of the problem involves a lack of internal continuity . For example some of the zombies shuffle about with the pace of a snail while others can run very fast and posses self awareness which leads to a ridiculous end scene involving a DJ . Likewise some can be killed by a kick to the face while others remain alive even if they've had their head chopped off , wait till you see the fridge scene , you might just die laughing . Even the serious characters suffer from this type of contrived sloppy scripting where a character suddenly reveals he's a helicopter pilot which leads me to ask why the army have been employing him to drive jeeps for a career <br /><br />Obviously you're reminded of the earlier film THE CRAZIES which also reminded me of the later 28 films . Bunch of terrorists break in to scientific base leading to all sorts of disaster with the military being the bad guys trying to kill both the infected and the survivors and long before the ending you'll have worked out that basically everyone dies . The problem with this is you'll instantly be reminded of how the British franchise did it so much better on a bigger budget . Not just that but the 28 franchise will appeal to a thinking audience who may have little interest in the average horror movie . ZOMBI 3 will appeal to no one but a hardcore splatter audience | negative |
This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible. | negative |
The director is sweet, as is his co-directing wife Shira Geffen, but their movie sucks. It has its moments (and some pretty girls), but there is too much of everything: "Amélie" meets "Breaking the waves" meets "Pauline at the beach". You walk away wanting to know more about the wedding photographer, and about the girl who likes it best when nothing happens, be it in movies or in real life. Instead, you get a suicidal writer, a neurotic actress and an illegal-immigrant-come-social-worker with a heart of gold. It feels like there's more than one truly touching story hidden in the script, but at face value it's a truckload of wasted story lines and sentimental bullshit. Hard to sit out as it is. | negative |
Commissaire Mattei(André Bourvil) is a single with a little gun who loves cats and his boss at the Paris police department is a philosopher who knows that even the police becomes sooner or later guilty. That is what the film is all about. And a jewel robbery at the place Vendome.<br /><br />Corey (Delon) brings the plan from prison, Vogel(Volonté)joins him and helps him against two tough guys, who are after him, because he took mafioso Ricos(Andre Eycan) money, while Rico already took Coreys girl friend and left him very much alone for five years in jail. Corey and Vogel find a third man, Jansen(Montand), a former police officer and sniper who opens a security lock by shooting special hand made ammunition into a hole. A perfect plan and cooperation, but they have to sell the booty and there is Mattei in the role of a buyer in disguise. The circle closes. Running to help each other they are shot by the cat loving Mattei and his little pistol.<br /><br />It took Melville 20 years he says to make a robbery film after he failed to get a contract for RIFFIFI. Melville wrote the screenplay and filmed in the south of France and in Paris of yesteryear. The great Henri Decae is as usual the lighting cameraman. It is the one before last picture of Melvilles who died after another film with Delon in 1972.<br /><br />Melville actually wanted Belmondo instead of Volonté, he didn't like that Italian at all, but Volonté-Vogel is an excellent fugitive and gives next to Bourvil the most convincing performance. But mind you: Melville notes, that Volonté is an instinctive actor, a strange character, very wearying and absolutely impossible on a French set. Melville didn't like him at all and didn't want to work with him ever again.<br /><br />Melville is wrong. Volonté give the most lively character in the nowhere of not so many interesting characters. You can see what he is feeling being chased by Mattei and his little dangerous gun and all the dogs of France in winter 70. A wild actor.<br /><br />Also André Bourvil, who passed away close to the time of the filming. He also was not first choice, but definitely a great substitute. He carries the instinct of a lonely hunter through the whole film and gets in the end his chance to become guilty once more.<br /><br />Jansen has entered at night the jewelry shop with a rifle and a tripod but risks eventually freehandedly a successful shot. When he meets Delon the first time we already know that the elegant Jansen has a severe drinking problem. After the robbery Montand renounces to take his part of the booty and mentions to Delon, who looks up to him, that he only got into the red circle, because he wanted to take revenge on the inhabitants of his wardrobe. Delon doesn't catch what he means. The audience recalls having seen Montand in a great scene in his haunted house fighting helplessly nightmare creatures that come out of the wardrobe and attack him. At that time a very rare scene, one recalls a long time after. I bet it was ever so difficult to arrange and direct that stuff at a time no one imagined the coming days of digital movie making. Great artwork when art was made by hand.<br /><br />We sure will remember a crew like the actors, still it seems even after 33 years this one stays the less popular of the six thrillers of Melville. What is wrong with it? I am afraid one doesn't take much interest in those three actors (showing three criminals) and their police hunter. We learn too little about Corey and his fatal 5 years away from his beautiful girl(Anna Douking). Montand is still a great sniper, but what made him become a drinking man with funny creatures in his wardrobe. Delon acts as if he is in an earlier adventure of the samourai, Volonté is the man in the trunk of Delons American car and superbly moving and Mattei is swell to look at, a great actor at the edge of his life. But how could he ever possibly doubt that all are guilty ?<br /><br />In an interview Melville states, that there is no woman in the film. Not in the very red circle, but I remember well that jolly good looking female Anna Douking (with no future career). We are in the 70s. There in fact rises a woman from the bed of an old mafioso wearing nothing and walks slowly to the door to listen to the voice of her old lover Delon. Bardot did something like that 10 years earlier. This time Melville was directing. Well done.<br /><br />The RED CERCLE has certainly added a few but not many glittering gems to film history. The robbery at Place Vendome and Montands wonder bullet the inhabitants of the wardrobe and Volonté escaping Bouvil in white underwear and carrying his trousers carefully across a stream. That is too little for a great gangster and robbery movie. But the 110 minutes never bore you and it is a game on a high level. And there are probably some secrets you learn when you see the film over and over again. None of the secrets is that we are all guilty and the late Francois Perier is also featured.<br /><br />Michael Zabel | positive |
Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."<br /><br />The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.<br /><br />Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh. | negative |
I like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.<br /><br />Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.<br /><br />Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.<br /><br />Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.<br /><br />3/10 | negative |
This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original "Italian Job" entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie "scripted" by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly "directed" by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.<br /><br />The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:<br /><br />(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)<br /><br />(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters<br /><br />(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.<br /><br />(4) Er, that's it.<br /><br />Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine. <br /><br />Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.<br /><br />Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie. | negative |
Okay...it's 2005 and when you finally get to look at this film, you will probably exclaim that it is dated. But here's the thing, the screenplay was bold, the exposure of the music industry at that time was as bold as well...and it took some time for this to get music that was created by African Americans to be promoted on the same level as white acts. In some cases it still is - but back in the 70's this film addressed some of the "background" many never knew. Now we've got "American Idol" - "Pop Idol" and other such things that allow us into the minds of the "record execs" and how they think they should market something that sells and not market talent.<br /><br />When I was a kid, I loved the Earth, Wind and Fire release of "That's the Way of the World" which contained some of their biggest hits: "Shining Star", "Reasons", "Yeanin', Learnin'" and the title. Little did I know this was a SOUNDTRACK of a MOVIE...until I moved to Los Angeles and got the wonderful "Z" Channel.<br /><br />The "Z" Channel showed this film as part of a "Harvey Keitel" retrospective. Gee, I had no idea Harvey Keitel DID so many movies -- and when I saw this one, I was surprised. This movie is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it does deserve more merit than it got. It's a nice little film. More than a "vanity piece" for Earth, Wind and Fire, Harvey Keitel does a great job as a torn record executive trying "to fight the system". There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from this, and a lot of "insider" trade that was exposed.<br /><br />If you can find this uncut...it's worth a look. | positive |
It takes a rare movie to get better each time you see it. O Brother does that and then some. The first time I saw it, I have to admit I had never seen anything like it. Then I wanted to see it again, and now I'm up to double digits with this great movie, the Coen brothers' finest movie they've ever done, with Fargo and Hudsucker Proxy coming in a tight second and third for me.<br /><br />George Clooney gives the performance of his career playing Ulysses Everett McGee, a fast-talking know-it-all escaped convict who really doesn't know that much at all. Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro are the perfect sidekicks for Clooney, particularly Nelson and his portrayal of Delmar, a loyal albeit uneducated fellow escapee. John Goodman is my favorite bit character as Big Dan, perfect. It reminds me of his part in Raising Arizona, he's just a perfect actor for this role. Coen brothers' favorites Holly Hunter and Charles Durning also provide memorable performances. <br /><br />Joel and Ethan Coen are masters of their trade. It's not like they try to win Academy Awards every time they make a film, they just try and tell a story that they want to tell, and it's entertaining. It's a loose adaptation of the Odyssey, and I mean loose for all of you Homer fanatics. It's just great.<br /><br />The most amazing part of this movie though is the coloring. I've watched how they got the dusty feel to the movie and I am still in awe just thinking about it. The coloring does become an important part of the movie. Great great movie. | positive |
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! | negative |
Like another ticket buyer I saw a nice cute poster about this film, it's five star review, and awards won. Thought what the heck, let's by a ticket for myself and my two sons. BAD IDEA. The movie was not a family film, it was gratuitous, and it contained nothing worth watching. | negative |
This movie is a love story set in the backdrop of war. Everything about the movie was perfect. I just saw the movie yesterday and I want to get my own DVD asap and watch it many times over. The story ends as it started I was very happy that he came back and I was proud of her for becoming a doctor and fulfilling her father's dream. She honored her father, boyfriend-husband, and her lover. The character had many shades. Christian Bale is also an phenomenal actor. Some stories do have happy endings. Aside from the love story angle I thought about how a beautiful, serene and peaceful island had been affected by war and it made me realize the true devastation war can have on its people...government makes the decision whereas the people suffer. Her father was a very educated man and wanted more for his daughter while she had regular dreams. I loved the scene where she is complaining about not getting a dowry and I also loved the scene where both lived through the earthquake. They were survivors. | positive |
I was fortunate enough to meet George Pal (and still have my DS:TMOB poster autographed by him) at a convention shortly after the release, and asked him why he chose to do the film "camp". Before he could answer, two studio flacks intercepted and lectured me on how the studio "knew best" and how "no one will take such a film seriously". I had been reading the Bantam reprints for a couple of years thanks to a friend (ComiCon attendees of the 1970s will recall Blackhawk and his band? I was in a couple of years of that with him), and had higher hopes than what we got.<br /><br />The flacks insisted that no high adventure would ever be done seriously, and so doing 'camp' was the only way. Several other fans jumped in on my side, with Pal listening as best he could. At the end of the little event, Pal came up to us and apologized, wishing he could have done more and better.<br /><br />STAR WARS put the lie to the flacks, and a year after Pal's death, Spielberg and Lucas proved that Doc Savage could have easily been the next major movie franchise...if it hadn't been for the flacks.<br /><br />Tear out the memory or history of Doc, and the film would have been worth a 6/10 rating as nothing more than a mindless popcorn seller.<br /><br />But destroying the legacy like that was no less an abomination than killing a baby in the crib.<br /><br />Doc Savage can still come to the screen, and survive the inevitable comparisons by the ill-informed to Indiana Jones, but it would have to be done in all seriousness and earnest to reclaim the glory that we should expect from the First American Superhero.<br /><br />SIDENOTES: Yes, there was a second script for ARCHENEMY OF EVIL, and it's a lot more serious. Yes, there was simultaneous footage shot, but mostly establishing shots and very little with actors. And, yes, there _is_ a one-sheet of Ron Ely leaping over a brick wall and blasting at something over his shoulder with a specially built bronze pistol. Ely's wearing a duster over a button down white shirt with a bronze tie, and the words "DOC SAVAGE: ARCHENEMY OF EVIL...Coming Next Summer!" POSTSCRIPT: If anyone knows who the studio flacks were that accompanied George Pal in 1975 to San Diego for the convention, smack the idiots up the side of the head and call them the idiots that they are. At the time, they were doing dorkknobs and Fu Manchu in stripes and baggy canvas pants, and carrying Paramount portfolios. | negative |
Someone had a great idea: let's have Misty Mundae do her own, R-rated version of Lara Croft - firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits, but topless as well. It WAS indeed a great idea. The problem is that the people who had it couldn't come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. Therefore, we get a "film" that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow-motion), and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. The appeal of Misty Mundae is still evident: she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl-next-door beauty. However her two female co-stars here, with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene, are nowhere near her league. If "Mummy Raider" was presented as a Youtube video, I'd rate it higher, but as a "film" destined for DVD consumption it cannot get more than 1/2 a * out of 4. | negative |
I watched this film during a special advanced preview in Reading, Berkshire.<br /><br />The two main characters, Michael and Rory strike up a friendship, when Rory is introduced to the care home that Michael already resides. Michael is amazed to find someone who can finally understand him, as until now his cerebal palsey made people think that he couldn't communicate. <br /><br />Rory introduces Michael to the life that he's missing. Rory is a feisty character, who doesn't let his condition (Muscular Dystrophy) get to him.<br /><br />They bond and apply for Independent living, and find a lovely flat and assistant and have all the fun that they could ever dream of.<br /><br />Don't go to see this film if you are after some "Entertainment". Do go see this film if you're willing to see something a little different.<br /><br />The storyline is strong, the actors are fantastic and despite the sadness that comes with the film the mood is uplifting.<br /><br />I thoroughly recommend it. Though if you are anything like me and prone to crying - take tissues, as you'll need them! | positive |
Me and my friend read the summery and watched the trailer and were very interested and excited to go rent this movie. BAD IDEA. We thought a movie with actors that influential would have been a sure hit, but our expectations fell extremely short. First of all, the trailer and summery are misleading to the point of lies. The movie started out slow for the first 1 1/2 hours(reminder, its about two hours long) and when it finally started to gain momentum, It sucked. Plus, the plots were very hard to follow. It confused us because it kept skipping from one story to another in random order. The characters where not very realistic when it came to reality. Sure the mum and son could be actual people in reality, but everyone else seemed to be one extreme or the other. If your a person who likes sick, twisted, unusual movies, then go for it. But we advise not wasting two hours of you life you cant get back. Unfortunitly, no one told us that... | negative |
I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything. | negative |
It has taken me a while to watch this version as unfortunately I don't seem to be able to rent it in the video store, only the other version but I fell in love with it. I was always borderline with the other Emma. Gwenneth and Toni Collette, as they are not British naturally have to put on the accent, and well to me it doesn't seem natural. It seems put on. Sorry but don't think Toni and Gwenneth did a brilliant job there. I could not warm to any of the characters, but this version is more heart warming and more the type of person I imagined Emma to be. It is definitely the version I will come back to from now on. I was disappointed that Mr Knightley was not better looking, but he is convincing. I also like Jane Fairfax better (played by Olivia Williams). I never warmed to her in the movie version, but she is better portrayed in this version. Come to think of it, (besides Mr Knightley) all characters are better played, and a lot less over the top. Unfortunately both came out around same time and the Paltrow version got more publicity. Pity...... I also love the new scene at the end. Well done to Kate Beckingsale! Therefore, if you are a Jane Austen fan, don't forget to watch this one. | positive |
Much better than expected. Good family flick - catch it on reruns. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Paul Giamatti chews up the scenery - he has way more talent then the role deserves. A treat to watch Inspector Uhl from "The Illusionist" go over the top. The blue man scenes had my 11 year old in stitches. The cameos were particular fun for the parents - nice to see Lee Majors and Urkel (umm, Jaleel) again. It's going to be tough to think up 10 lines for this film , but let's hear it for a movie that promotes honesty between a child and their parents! Amanda Bynes does a fine job when she gets to be part of the sting. I normally can't stand Frankie Muniz but he is just fine here. Hats off to the casting director - if only for hiring Giamatti! | positive |
I wasted 35 minutes of my life on this turkey before I gave up. The main character is completely clueless and astoundingly unsympathetic, but there is no humor in his blundering. As soon as he arrives in Germany, the screenwriter pulls the old "there's only one room in the hotel, you'll have to share a room with a pretty girl" stunt. Come on, at least you could let them develop their relationship a bit first. Watch "It Happened One Night" to see how to do it right--or any of a thousand movies since then.<br /><br />The acting is consistently third-rate, and the improvised dialogue should have been left on the cutting-room floor. It meanders with no plan at all, despite the fact that the film telegraphs the relationship's destination from the moment Greta is introduced.<br /><br />The first song, in the boardroom, is mildly funny but badly sung. The rest of the songs (well, to be fair, I only heard those in the first half-hour) are just pointless and awful. Most of the singers are painfully out of tune, but not in any intentionally humorous sort of way. | negative |
I hate football!! I hate football fans! I hate cars! but this film was the funniest thing I have seen in quite some time. <br /><br />I was given the great opportunity to see this film at the weekend, and all I have to say is I laughed till I cried, and when is it going to be available in the UK and Denmark. Girls, this is one football film you will need to see, its hilarious!<br /><br />The fact that this film started out as some crazy commercial for a telephone company is just amazing, the guys may not be well known actors, but this is good down to earth real humour, with real people, and I for one applaud them for taking this to the screen.<br /><br />WELL DONE! | positive |
In 1996's "101 Dalmatians," Cruella De Vil was arrested by the London Metropolitain Police (God bless them) for attempting to steal and murder 101 puppies - dalmatians. All covered in mud and hay, she spent the next 4 years in the "tin can." Now, 4 years later, she, unfortunately, was released from the jail. I say, that's about 28 years - in dog years!!!!!<br /><br />So, in 2000, Disney decided to release a sequel to the successful live-action version of the classic film and it is hereby dubbed "102 Dalmatians." In it, there is a 102nd dalmatian added to the family (Oddball is the name, I think; I should know this since this was just shown on TV recently), and the puppy had no spots!!!!! Also, while Cruella (again played by Glenn Close) has escaped again, she wanted a bigger, better coat - made once again out of the puppies!!!!!<br /><br />I especially liked the theme song - I'm sure everybody loves the "Atomic Dog" song from the 70s or so. And now, we hear a bit of it in this movie!!!!!<br /><br />"102 Dalmatians" is such a great film that I keep on wondering - WHEN WILL THERE BE A "103 DALMATIANS?????" LOL<br /><br />10 stars | positive |
What i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line "never underestimate how stupid the audience are". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and "original". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised! | negative |
Oh f*cking hell, where should I start... First of all; this show is just another stupid American non-funny so called comedy which has pathetic acting and very very poor humor. The American way of laughing-track business makes the whole thing even worse. How come I can hear laughter, yet there's nothing funny happening? Pretty stupid, eh? This show is only for those American people who haven't ever heard that there are far more funnier, better and wittier comedies - not only in Great Brittain, but also in America (The Simpsons for example). I simply can't understand what is so good about "Reba" that it has lasted for long a while in television. It has nothing new to offer, it underestimates the (possible) viewers in so many ways and it simply isn't funny at all. I could have lived with the fact that there are so bad shows as "Reba", but why the hell they had to run it here in Finland. If I see few seconds of this horrible show the rest of the day is ruined for me. Take my word and believe me - this show sucks ass even more than these kind of American "comedies" usually does. This is simply horrible. Do yourself a favor; don't ever watch this peace of sh*t. <br /><br />Well I leave the commenting for those who now this language better. Thanks for your (possible) interest. | negative |
This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked. | negative |
This was an exteremely good historical drama. John Turturro is excellent as the tortured genius Luzhin and brilliantly portrays the character's manic affectations such as his strange dancing. Emily Watson is fine in her support role as the sensitive lover Natalia.<br /><br />The relatonship between chess and near madness is well explored by Gorris and familiar Nabokov preoccupations such as 'eternal innocence' (i.e. 'Lolita') are evident in this film. I think I will now go on to read the novel. It was a touching and tragic ending and it was hard to keep a dry eye. Brilliant movie! | positive |
This movie reminded me a lot of a song by the Dead Kennedys called "Straight A's." However, unlike this film, the hero of the DK's song turns to suicide. You'll wish this bozo had resorted to killing himself instead of doing the crime he did. The whole thing was convoluted and in the beginning, you sympathize with the hero of the film, then he quickly betrays your sympathies. The long sequences of just showing the hero's face while he delivers a monologue drag the film down quite a bit. Avoid this if possible. | negative |
The story is seen before, but that does'n matter if you can figure out to make a proper storyboard. It is clear that the director haven't spent his work on the storyboard. Alongside this, the cameraman spent far too much time leaning angles that do not match the message of the movie. The funniest is, however, if you take a look at the movie's website, you can read that it was on purpose that the director has chosen to make the film with bad camera angles. Because it remind us about hunting. But I have never heard of hunting with poor camera angles ;-) It will have 1 stars because the story is OK. It is a pity that Ti West, has not spent more time to review his story. It is as if the movie was more important than the planning. Because you have a camera does not mean you should make a movie right away... come. Everyone can make a movie, but not all will be just as good. So a word of advice to Ti West are: stop and labeling what you want. Use your time to start planning and not filming until everything has come down on a storyboard. You certainly have the ability and desire - so don't abuse your talent. | negative |
I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.<br /><br />Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible. | negative |
After Fatih Akins first work "Im Juli", which was fairly good, he created a really gorgeous italian family epic. Its a german movie, which is unfortunately a bad precondition, cause we rareley produce more than moderate movies ;). But this movie makes some very good snapshots of the time then. "Solino" is about a Italian immigrant who arrives in the "Ruhr" region of Germany during the 60s. The immigrant and his family then start the first Pizza restaurant in the region. The characters are excellent drawn. Especially Gigi, the main actor. You live every second, every feeling he does. His brother, played by Moritz Bleibtreu, isnt that good. Well, you just dont believe him the role. But the character is wellbalanced and fits perfectly into this script. I feel an urgent need to compare the style of this movie with the style of "The Godfather". Many people will probably hate this movie, say its boring. Not much tension? - yes, but an outrageous movie. 9 out of 10. | positive |
My watch came a little too late but am glad i watched both this and the sequel together...which makes me compliment the makers of this flick for giving such a pure and basic treatment to the idea of romanticism... and very marginally separating it from the idea of relationships! As a lot has been written about the movie already, it would just be appropriate to highlight few portions of the movie which i personally loved.<br /><br />I think the point where Jesse and Celine make phony phone calls to their respective friends was a very shrewd way of telling each other what they had meant to each other through a journey not even extending 24 hrs... the curiosity of two people who both think the other has made an infallible impact on the other has been very smartly dealt with...<br /><br />On the plot front , making a romantic story work on pure conversation is not an easy job to accomplish..<br /><br />I believe in romantic flicks of such flavor , the characters are not clearly designed even in the writer's and director's mind. What the actors bring out is what becomes of them .. right or wrong even the idea bearers would find it difficult to justify... to become the character, the life the actor gives has to go beyond instructions and the story...here both the actors do just the RIGHT job! Kudos..!!!and Before sunset is another feather which makes this one even more beautiful! | positive |
Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | negative |
I watched this film version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!<br /><br />This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the "romance" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his "death", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation. | negative |
Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.<br /><br />Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.<br /><br />It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever. | negative |
A lot of people hated this movie, but that I blame on two facts - 1 - They want it to be too much like the first couple of American Pie movies. and 2 - they are trying to take it too seriously.<br /><br />This one I found was the best one out of all six, and I absolutely love Dwight. The plot is predictable, I'll say that, but then what teen comedy ISN'T? Road Trip, Dirty Deeds etc etc, they are all incredibly predictable, but still goddamn funny! I say this is worth watching, I love it, I find it hilarious. Just don't watch it while comparing it to the first ones because it's nothing alike.<br /><br />After watching Naked Mile and this one, it became obvious that all the American Pie movies were about, and only about, the Stiflers. Which is FINE by me.<br /><br />Watch. Enjoy. Love. xD | positive |
If this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it. | negative |
This movie was chosen, quite frankly as a pig in a poke from our local Video store. It turned out to be quite a pig. The plot line-such as it is-was disjointed, inconsistent and predictable. The actors constantly looked embarrassed to be mouthing the poorly written lines. The only funny moment in the entire film revolved around the dangers of smoking and the inadvertant deployment of an airbag. The remainder of the film lacked the punch to amuse either of my young daughters (aged less than ten years), myself, my wife, my mother-in-law, or even the cat or the dog. My advice, if you are tempted to borrow this turkey, is to save your money and your time. Look for something else... | negative |
A very intelligent and exciting thriller that doesn't rely on action but on situation, which is all to rare these days. I would compare this film to The Day of the Jackal, another film about the pursuit of a dangerous international criminal. The acting across the board is superlative - Aidan Quinn has a tricky double role as the vicious terrorist Carlos and as the Navy man who impersonates him. Donald Sutherland plays the amoral CIA agent who hires him. Ben Kingsley plays the Israeli officer who assists in the plan. This is a very tense and effective film, and it's remarkable considering just how little action there is in it. The first half of the film is all set-up, as the Navy man prepares to impersonate Carlos. The second half is a breathless actioner, the action coming out of the characters and their situations, thus making it all the more gripping. A really tight film that shouldn't be overlooked. | positive |
This is possibility the worst and most disappointing film I have ever seen. I've spent four years at two universities and know that there must be a good film to be made about the experience. This isn't it. The "acting" is god awful and the plot non-existent.<br /><br />Here are a few incidents from my one year in halls of residence.<br /><br />1) A posh lad that unknowingly got off with a transvestite. 2) The best friend pairing of two girls - one with huge breasts and the other with the nickname "the brick". 3) A couple that shag too loudly. 4) The lad who gets all the girls 5) The lad from Northern Ireland who is very difficult to understand. 6) McDonalds in bed 7) Curry every night for a week 8) Student bashing, couple of my mates ended up in hospital 9) The discarded joint that started a fire. 10) The flood 11) The lad who wakes up on his floor to find that every item of furniture has be taken from his room.<br /><br />And if I can come up with that list in 5 minutes and from real life, I'm sure a couple of script writers can do better, a lot better.<br /><br />And for a film named after a Sleeper song, where is the Britpop soundtrack? | negative |
Young Quaids fake accent was difficult to accept at times.<br /><br />The show was billed as mystery/suspence but should have been listed as a romance.<br /><br />Don't rent this one if you are sleepy, it will knock you out. | negative |
Esther Williams plays a romantically unattached water-skiing secretary who longs to stop "walking on the water" and be some man's wife; Van Johnson and Tony Martin are her potential choices for a husband. Despite fine aquatic sequences filmed at Florida's Cypress Gardens, this romantic comedy is awfully stale. As helmed by plodding director Charles Walters, everything here is made to seem intentionally innocuous, which doesn't lend the picture much staying power. Even Esther's big moments in the water are not quite up to the mesmerizing leaps from her other swimming vehicles, though they are preferable to the asides with the men, both of whom are colorless. Carroll Baker, in her film debut as Martin's disgruntled ex-girlfriend, is the liveliest of the bunch. Flimsy stuff, indeed. *1/2 from **** | negative |
Where to begin? <br /><br />#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.<br /><br />Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he<br /><br />A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?<br /><br />B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?<br /><br />C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails<br /><br />D) All of the above<br /><br />E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at<br /><br />the time they approved the script?<br /><br />#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...<br /><br />#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.<br /><br />Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say! | negative |
... than this ;-) What would happen if Terry Gilliam and Douglas Adams would have worked together on one movie? This movie starts with a touch of Brazil... when, at a certain point, the story moves straight into the twilight zone... bringing up nothing new, but just nothing... and nothing is great fun! When Dave and Andrew starts to explore their new environment the movie gets really enjoyable... bouncing heads? well... yes ;-) <br /><br />anyway... this movie was, imho, the biggest surprise at this year's FantasyFilmFest...<br /><br />Just like in Cube and Cypher Natali gave this one a minimalistic, weird but very special design, which makes it hard to locate the place of the story or its time... timeless somehow... | positive |
How do you describe perfection? In-the-Mood-For-Love! Maggie Cheung and Tony Leong practically dance on the screen and give stellar performances that stay with you hours after you've left the theatre. Every scene in the film resonates with the powerful combination of superb cinematography and shot selection, top-notch acting, and the sensual soundtrack. Nat King Cole singing in French absolutely sets the tone for the whole movie. Maggie and Tony look marvelous, with Maggie slinking about in some truly glorious cheongsams and Tony always looking dapper. I've seen this movie several times already, and everytime I see it I find something new to rave about. Love it! | positive |
I just want to add my two cents worth, and forgive me if I am repeating something that has already been posted, but I feel it is worth reminding people of the everlovin' genius of Damon Runyon. Without the wonderfully street, hilarious writings of Damon Runyon this film would never have been made - nor most of the other great classics that deal with gamblers & the like from before 1960. Damon Runyon worked as a newspaper man, and he was from Colorado, but he sure did _get_ the street scene of the East Coast. If you are not a dedicated fan of old Hollywood comedies, I would recommend a few other flicks from Damon Runyon's writings; "the Lemondrop Kid," and "Little Miss Marker," both feature Bob Hope, who, aside from his politics, has always been a funny man. (As a West Coast liberal, I find his politics fairly funny, too!) Damon Runyon lives!!!! | positive |
"Hak Hap", or "Black Mask" (in english) was a disappointment. I was told that it was a sort of "Japanese version of the Matrix". Imagine my disappointment. The film was either badly dubbed or the soundtrack didn't time well with the film. Another thing is that the dialogue was pretty much bad. There was very little thought put into the English version of this film and it appeals only to the "senseless action" genre. Not a film I would want to see again. | negative |
Hip, distinguished doctor James Coburn (as Peter Carey) arrives to accept a position as pathologist at a Boston hospital. Almost immediately, Mr. Coburn beds beautiful nutritionist Jennifer O'Neill (as Georgia Hightower). While sleeping with Ms. O'Neill, Coburn is awakened by an emergency involving a botched abortion - the fifteen-year-old who bleeds to death happens to be the daughter of the hospital's big donor, Dan O'Herlihy (as J.D. Randall). Coburn doesn't believe the man arrested, doctor pal James Hong (as David Tao), committed the crime; although, Mr. Hong admits to performing illegal abortions on the side. While trying to clear his friend, Coburn wades through a thickening plot
<br /><br />**** The Carey Treatment (3/29/72) Blake Edwards ~ James Coburn, Jennifer O'Neill, Michael Blodgett, James Hong | negative |
Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay are brilliant as Sir and his Dresser. Of course the play is brilliant to begin with and nothing can compare with the immediacy and collegiality of theatre, and I think you listen better in theatre; but on the screen we become more intimate, we're 'up-close' more than we are in the theatre, we witness subtle changes in expression, we "see" better as well as listen. Both the play and the movie are wondrous: moving, intelligent, illuminating--of the backstage story of the company, of historical context, of the two main characters, and of the parallel characters in "Lear" itself. If you cannot get to see it in a theatre (I don't imagine it's produced much these days) then, please, do yourself a favor, and get the video. | positive |
I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.<br /><br />The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.<br /><br />Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.<br /><br />I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately. | negative |
I would recommend this for anyone who is an admirer of the late John Cassavetes. And for those who have never known of Cassavetes. It is an excellent film. I really don't have the time to go into the details of why this is my opinion, but if you're looking for something gutsy, with lots of scenes to mull over, then this one is for you. The cinematography is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the film, as well as the story itself. This "review" does not do the film justice. It is an experience one must view for themselves. LOTS OF CHARACTER. VERY GENUINE. | positive |
I wait for each new episode, each re-run with anticipation! The new look of sci-fi created by Stargate SG-1 is a wonder that I hope will never end. To combine the past with the future is a new twist that is fascinating to me. Season #9 should be a thrill in itself. I wish that Richard Dean Anderson would show up more often in the new season, as I love his dry wit as much as his temper tantrums in his character as Jack O'Neill. The other characters add their own uniqueness to the show that makes it a winner, season after season. You cancel this program in the next three years, and you make a serious mistake. Also, you need a bigger role for the Asgard - they are just too cool. | positive |
Wow! I have seen so many bad low budget films lately, but this one is great. The very realistic portrayal of police life in a city on the East German coast is a strong contrast to other crime movies or series. I loved the main actress and the absolute rejection of any prevalent cliché about the police. This film is realistic like a documentation and entertaining like a drama at the same time. A perfect tradeoff! | positive |
I just saw Hot Millions on TCM and I had completely forgotten this gem. Ustinov creates a clever and divisive plot that has him cleverly going from two bit con man to ingenious... Well you'll see. Maggie Smith is perfect as the bumbling secretary/neighbor who has a tough time holding a job but has a warm and vibrant personality that beams through in this picture. She creates a fine portrayal of a warm, witty and real person who in the long run...well...<br /><br />Molden and Newhart as top executives take on the challenge of making what could be banal roles and make them come out into a comic life of their own. <br /><br />Robert Morley and Ceasar Romero are just a pleasure to see and I know at least in Romero's case Ustinov is extending a helping hand of work. <br /><br />This film is meant to be a shot back at the rising computer age and it's problems for the average con man or man for that matter but in fact the characters are so involving and so much fun to watch that the computer sub plot is almost lost...I say almost.<br /><br />Let down your usual expectations of modern comedy and look for the great performances and friendly, forgiving and deeply involving plot in this picture. | positive |
Keep in mind I'm a fan of the genre but have only recently seen this film for the first time. How I've overlooked it all this time is a wonder to me. To me this is a better film then the much lauded "High Noon". It's a great western with excellent acting and a great story. The DVD is in beautifull black and white with outstanding cinematography. If you like westerns or James Stewart this film is not to be missed. | positive |
In a way, you have to respect Arachnia. It's clearly meant as a tribute to the big bug movies of the fifties, and while the special effects look terrible; at least the film doesn't feature CGI. However, on the other hand; you can't respect the film too much because it's a load of rubbish. The acting is terrible, the special effects (as mentioned) are impossible to take seriously, and once you've seen one giant spider being blown up; you've seen them all, so it gets boring rather quickly. The plot follows a bunch of people who are unlucky enough to be in a plane crash after a meteor shower. They go to the only house in the area; which just happens to be a house where a man has a huge spider he used to use as a circus attraction. Coincidently around the same time, the meteor shower has caused more giant spiders to rise from underground. All the characters in this film are poor caricatures; none of them have anything even resembling a third dimension and they will soon begin to thoroughly bore you. You've got to feel for director Brett Piper as he clearly didn't have much to work with for this film; but that doesn't make Arachnia worth a damn, and overall there are better giant bug films than this, and therefore Arachnia doesn't get the seal of approval from me. | negative |
Film is designed to affect the audience and this film left me speechless. Gorgeously photographed and well acted with dialog that approaches poetry the film involves lust, hate, murder, rape, theft and deception. It weaves an intense web that left me unable to take my eyes off the screen until the closing credits. The story is sweeping. It takes the audience from the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War to the human wreckage left behind. Roger Casamajor and Bruno Bertanzoni are two young actors who command the screen. Supporting players are excellently cast and lend a real sense of authenticity. Sets, lighting, scenery and cinematography are wonderful. I absolutely love the photography. | positive |
This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)! <br /><br />I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).<br /><br />The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.<br /><br />The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face! <br /><br />The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES... | negative |
Peaceful rancher Robert Sterling is on the losing side of a range war with his ruthless neighbors, that is until notorious outlaw Robert Preston shows up out of the blue to level the playing field. Soon he begins to go too far, feeding a growing sense of unease in Sterling, especially when his son begins to idolize the wily criminal.<br /><br />The Sundowners is a tightly-paced, gritty, and surprisingly tough little picture with a great performance by Preston. Here, he comes across as an evil version of Shane, that is until the real nature of the rancher and the outlaw's relationship is revealed. Most movie guides and video boxes spoil the surprise!<br /><br />Rounding out the cast is Chill Wills, Jack Elam, and the debut of John Drew Barrymore, who became more famous for his offspring than his acting. | positive |
I'd have to say that this was a little embarrassing for the 'King of the Cowboys'; made in 1948, the picture came out a decade after Roy Rogers' earliest pictures in which he had a starring role. Roy's character comes off as a bit clueless in this one, along with his female co-star Jane Frazee, who alternates her allegiance between Roy and Robert Livingston, portraying chief bad guy Bill Regan. The whole story seems kind of muddled, with missed opportunities for what could have been an entertaining hour or so. Like the legend of the 'Hangman's Hotel' for example, which says the hanged man comes to life at midnight. With Andy Devine in the cast as Cookie Bullfincher, you would think the story would get a little mileage out of that set up. Instead, you have some convoluted proceedings that would have been better served if this had been a Bowery Boys flick. It was a sad attempt at a haunted hotel gimmick that relied on poor old Genevieve, who truth be told, wound up getting more screen time than Trigger, who's contract as 'Smartest Horse in the Movies' didn't have anything to say about getting upstaged by a mule. And then you have Foy Willing and his Riders of the Purple Sage replacing Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers for your musical interlude. I don't know about you, but it was already half way into the picture and I was still looking for Pat Brady - oh well! <br /><br />Yet there was still an interesting element to be found here if you were looking hard enough, and that turned out to be Roy's athletic dismount of Trigger while still on the run from the bad guys. OK, it was probably a stunt double, but I haven't seen that one before in a couple hundred Westerns.<br /><br />Jane Frazee does the honors as the female lead in this picture, as she would in four other films opposite Roy in the 1947/1948 time frame. In "Under California Stars", she appeared as Andy Devine's cousin, appropriately named Caroline Bullfincher. You're never quite convinced what side she'll come in on in this story though, since she starts out pretending to be someone she's not, and winds up on the good guy side almost by accident.<br /><br />Fans of the old Laurel and Hardy films might be as surprised as I was to see James Finlayson here as the Sheriff of Sintown. I would have liked a little more comedy relief written into his role, but he played it pretty straight after all. I had to wonder, when it was all over, why he and old Vanderpool (Charle Coleman) wound up in the mine shaft with Cookie when there was no reason for that to be. Just a way to close it out I guess, with about as much thought as went into the rest of the picture. I hate to be that harsh, but if you've seen enough Roy Rogers flicks, you've got to know that this was not one of his finer efforts.<br /><br />Say, Sintown - I wonder if that's the same place that grew up to be Sin City? | negative |
As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.<br /><br />Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.<br /><br />There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great. | negative |
A fragment in the life of one of the first female painters to achieve historical renown, "Artemisia" tells the true story of a young Italian woman's impassioned pursuit of artistic expression and the vicissitudes she encounters. The film features sumptuous costuming and sets and a good cast and acting. However, it is muddled in its attempt to depict the esoterics of the art and the time and is uninspired in its representation of the passion of the artist as painted on canvas and explored through her involvements with men. A good film for those interested in renaissance painting or period films. | positive |
It was a good story, but not very well told. I liked the themes and the main story line, which wasn't as clear as it could have been. Maybe there was too much going on and a lack of ability to reign it all in. The acting was okay to cheesy, some were stronger than others and even the stronger actors had their moments of lesser quality acting. It took me a couple of months to get through the entire movie because it didn't keep my attention and the flow was just bad. I only just finished watching it and I'm glad I did as the movie finally gets moving and has some continuity toward the end. Again, a good story, but the delivery was sub par. Would recommend it for the story line and maybe a little eye candy, and I do mean, a little. | negative |
Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.<br /><br />I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.<br /><br />If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.<br /><br />Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him. | negative |
I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less.. | negative |
Although credit should have been given to Dr. Seuess for stealing the story-line of "Horton Hatches The Egg", this was a fine film. It touched both the emotions and the intellect. Due especially to the incredible performance of seven year old Justin Henry and a script that was sympathetic to each character (and each one's predicament), the thought provoking elements linger long after the tear jerking ones are over. Overall, superior acting from a solid cast, excellent directing, and a very powerful script. The right touches of humor throughout help keep a "heavy" subject from becoming tedious or difficult to sit through. Lastly, this film stands the test of time and seems in no way dated, decades after it was released. | positive |
It's easy to see why many people consider In the Mood for Love to be Wong Kar-Wai's best film. The toned down appeal of the film, centering on the studied view of a relationship put through an emotional ringer, is a retread into Happy Together territory but without the hyper-kinetic patchwork of jarring film stocks and hyper-saturated sequences that have become a trademark of Kar-Wai's films since Chungking Express. Like Soderbergh's The Limey, this is a different kind of curio for Kar-Wai; where dialogue and plot are forsaken by mood and composition in order to create a tale of two delicate lives in a seemingly confining emotional stasis.<br /><br />It's a testament to the genius of Kar-Wai that he is capable to making such a simple tale so resonating. Chow Mo-Wan (Tony Leung) and Su Li-zhen (Maggie Cheung) move in next-door to each other within the same apartment building. He's a journalist who dreams of publishing martial-arts novels and she is a secretary at a shipping company. Their eventual coupling is obvious from the beginning but the pleasure here is the way that Kar-Wai ambiguously paints such a journey with his grand masterstrokes.<br /><br />The key to the success of the film is Kar-Wai's use of the interior space, playing with foreground and background planes in ways that are similar to the works of Polanski. During the wooingly sensuous first half of the film, Kar-Wai isolates Leung and Cheung within shots in such a way that the second person in a conversation is never visible. Kar-Wai is concerned with environment and space here, creating a cramped emotional dynamic between his characters. It's also telling that Kar-Wai never chooses to focus on the physicality of Mo-Wan and Li-zhen's spouses. Their faceless partners are noticeably absent from the film, as they are tending to their own love affairs with each other.<br /><br />This is not to suggest that In the Mood for Love is a confining experience because Kar-Wai manages to inundate his film with broad splashes of hypnotic camera movement and sound. There is one shot where Cheung's slow, sensual rise up a metaphorical stairway turns into Leung's descent down the very same stairwell; their movements perfectly compliment each other, bookending the shot and creating a sense of erotic duality between the two figures. Their souls have connected but they have yet to physically unite. The erotic displacement of these scenes is both fascinating and frustrating, as two star-crossed lovers reject physical consummation due to their humble fidelity.<br /><br />Other scenes in the film are punctuated with brief slow-motion shots of Cheung erotically moving through her interior surroundings, set to Mike Galasso's hauntingly beautiful score. Cheung's dresses beautifully compliment her exterior space as she moves slowly through her surroundings. Her movements slowly build up to what seems to be an inevitable fusion between Li-szhen and her dream lover even though the seduction process seems to be entirely sub-conscious.<br /><br />If I make it seem that these two characters are more like two birds unleashing pheromones on each other, it probably isn't that far-fetched of a statement. The tight bond these two characters have with their internal spaces is almost as intense as their relationship to the exteriors. The film rarely moves into an exterior space and when the camera does it is usually to peak through oval windows and symbolic bars that always remind us that these characters are like confined animals. Kar-Wai continues to tease us even when the lovers get close enough to touch, shattering the couple's proximity to each other by shooting them through mirrors or through gaps within articles of clothing located inside of a closet. Mother Nature even seems to respond to their love lust, often unleashing a soft crest of rain over the characters after their bodies have glided near each other.<br /><br />Kar-Wai's hauntingly atmospheric shots of a waterfall allowed Leung's Lai Yu-Fai to experience a cathartic release in Happy Together, even if Leslie Cheung's Ho Po-wing was not there to enjoy it with him. By that film's end, love was so inextricably bound to the act of war that a third man's muted declarations of love signaled Yu-Fai's realization that his dreams of seeing a waterfall would bring him inner peace, even if it would not bring him back his lover. Mo-Wan's journey terminates within the confines of a crumbling temple. His own emotional depletion is paralleled nicely with the political climate of his country, and the absence of Li-szhen is only made tolerable by the fact that Kar-Wai allows Mo-Wan to experience a release of sorts. Mo-Wan caters to an ancient myth and his secretive release into a crack in the temple leaves him capable of living his days with the hope that all his loss and heartache somehow served a higher purpose. | positive |
I decided to watch this on FearNet on demand for free because I figured well, nothing else looks enjoyable. And it turned out to be quite a good little horror surprise! The film serves as an anthology of four urban legends told from the point of view of four teenagers whose car breaks down in the middle of nowhere. After they decide to build a campfire in the woods, they begin to tell their spooky stories and the movie transitions to the events in the stories.<br /><br />The Honeymoon- a newlywed couple traveling cross country in an RV to Las Vegas is terrorized when they park in a wooded area by evil beings that hunt by the full moon. (I won't spoil that for you!) The Hook- Amy Smart and James Marsden, (probably the most famous people in the movie besides beautiful Christine Taylor) play the young couple who come face to face with the maniac that has a hook for a hand in this most recognizable short.<br /><br />People can Lick Too- this is probably the scariest and most dark of the stories. A young girl chats with another girl on the internet, but it turns out that it's actually a man who is obsessed with her and he proceeds to break into the house when she's alone. This was really chilling.<br /><br />The Locket- This is also a great story with Glen Quinn and Jacinda Barrett, who play a motorcyclist and a beautiful mute girl who are terrorized by ghosts from a previous century in a mysterious farm house. This was good but it was the weakest of the entries.<br /><br />The group around the campfire slowly develop their own terrifying experience in their segments between stories, and the end of this movie is surprising and really awesome! Overall this is not bone-chillingly scary but it's certainly a great little guilty pleasure that horror fans alike would definitely find worthwhile! | positive |
Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward. | negative |
FORBIDDEN PLANET is the best SF film from the golden age of SF cinema and what makes it a great film is its sense of wonder . As soon as the spaceship lands the audience - via the ships human crew - travels through an intelligent and sometimes terrifying adventure . We meet the unforgetable Robbie , the mysterious Dr Morbuis , his beautiful and innocent daughter Altair and we learn about the former inhabitants of the planet - The Krell who died out overnight . Or did they ? <br /><br />You can nitpick and say the planet is obviously filmed in a movie studio with painted backdrops but that adds to a sense of menace of claustraphobia I feel and Bebe and Louis Barron`s electronic music adds even more atmosphere <br /><br />I`m shocked this film isn`t in the top 250 IMDB films . | positive |
An interesting companion piece to true documentaries of John C. Holmes. Unfortunately, it doesn't deal with what ultimately killed Holmes, and it certainly could have benefited from doing so. Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg got the most praise for this, but I felt the true stars were Julianne Moore as the cocaine-sniffing mother wannabe, Don Cheadle as a black man struggling with identity as pornstar/stereo-salesman in some wild getups and William H. Macy, who's wife is the ultimate slut. Not to mention a nearly unrecognizable Alfred Molina. Macy's new year's eve bash and Cheadle's chance for a better life after a donut shop robbery gone wildly wrong are probably the two best scenes in the movie, or at least the two best shot. What this movie does best is show how power can easily corrupt in its various forms. However, none of the characters apparently learn anything from their dark downward spiral as they all rebound and return to their normal lives. | positive |
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one. | negative |
I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him! | negative |
Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it. | negative |
My first child was born the year this program came out, and I played the record album for the boys every Christmas thereafter. When the CD came out, I bought about ten copies and still give them to friends and relatives as they start families...it invariably becomes their favorite Christmas album. I recently found several DVD's (made on DVD-R from video tapes, probably) for sale on eBay. The one I bought was an excellent copy, and it was so great to see the show again after more than 25 years. There are some songs on the show that were not on the album, and some of the songs on the album were studio versions of the same songs on the show. But both the CD and DVD will stay in our library as the best Christmas entertainment ever. | positive |
At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange<br /><br />directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging. | negative |
I've barely just made it through one episode ("Crouch End"). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of "Nightmares and Dreamscapes" on par with the NBC's Hercules. | negative |
Finally, Timon and Pumbaa in their own film...<br /><br />'The Lion King 1 1/2: Hakuna Matata' is an irreverent new take on a classic tale. Which classic tale, you ask? Why, 'The Lion King' of course!<br /><br />Yep, if there's one thing that Disney is never short of, it's narcissism.<br /><br />But that doesn't mean that this isn't a good film. It's basically the events of 'The Lion King' as told from Timon and Pumbaa's perspective. And it's because of this that you'll have to know the story of 'The Lion King' by heart to see where they're coming from.<br /><br />Anyway, at one level I was watching this and thinking "Oh my god this is so lame..." and on another level I was having a ball. Much of the humour is predictable - I mean, when Pumbaa makes up two beds, a big one for himself and a small one for Timon, within the first nanosecond we all know that Timon is going to take the big one. But that doesn't stop it from being hilarious, which, IMO, is 'Hakuna Matata' in a nutshell. It's not what happens, it's how.<br /><br />And a note of warning: there are also some fart jokes. Seriously, did you expect anything else in a film where Pumbaa takes centre stage? But as fart jokes go, these are especially good, and should satisfy even the most particular connoisseur.<br /><br />The returning voice talent is great. I'm kinda surprised that some of the actors were willing to return, what with most of them only having two or three lines (if they're lucky). Whoopi Goldberg is particularly welcome.<br /><br />The music is also great. From 'Digga Tunnah' at the start to 'That's all I need', an adaption of 'Warthog Rhapsody' (a song that was cut from 'The Lion King' and is frankly much improved in this incarnation), the music leaves me with nothing to complain about whatsoever.<br /><br />In the end, Timon and Pumbaa are awesome characters, and while it may be argued that 'Hakuna Matata' is simply an excuse to see them in various fun and assorted compromising situations then so be it. It's rare to find characters that you just want to spend time with.<br /><br />Am I starting to sound creepy?<br /><br />Either way, 'The Lion King 1 1/2' is great if you've seen 'The Lion King' far too many times. Especially if you are right now thinking "Don't be silly, there's no such thing as seeing 'The Lion King' too many times!" | positive |
OK, this movie is stupid. I mean that in a good way though.It was stupid on purpose, and was one of the better "stupid" movies I've seen. The jokes and gags are purposefully bad, but delivered in a way that it struck all the right notes with me. The supporting characters were pretty shallow and mediocre. There is a pretty weak plot, but it works just fine.<br /><br />Elvira's character is the focus here.She is lovable and adorable.Cassandra Petersen has a world of acting talent that just glows in this movie.On top of that acting talent she had physical attributes which were frankly, stunning. Few men could disagree with that. The parts that show off her figure were also some of the funnier scenes in the movie.<br /><br />I had a smile ear to ear from the first scene to the last.<br /><br />Highly recommended to fans of comedy, and to fans of beautiful women. I wish they had made a dozen more Elvia movies. | positive |
This movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.<br /><br />****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie. | negative |
Forget Plan 9, this is the ultimate fiasco, a costume drama, ineptly directed, scripted, acted, etc. This film is based on Isabel Allende's not-so-much-better novel. I hate Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas (in non-Spanish films), and the other actors, including Winona, my favourite actress and Jeremy Irons try hard to get over such a terrible script. Plenty of mistakes (like, for example, since when does it snow in Xmas in Chile?) and very cruel, with tons of that evil named "magic realism", this stands out as the worst movie of all time. It totally sucks!!! | negative |
The trick to creating a good, solid mystery story is as much a matter of timing as its about plot contrivances, colorful characters or surprising twists. Anyone who has ever labored in frustration with an un-finishable Sunday New York Times crossword knows that any puzzle that takes too long to solve ceases to be any fun. The best murder mysteries, be they on film or in print, are slight affairs that get to the point, spell out their clues, line up their suspects and, hopefully, zap us with a few surprises; being complicated without being unduly confusing. And they play fair; on second, third and fourth viewings of the clues and red herrings we should be just as pleased to marvel at how well it all comes together as we were at being surprised in the first place. Indeed, good thrillers should get better on repeated viewings as we anticipate the double and triple crosses.<br /><br />Sidney Lumet's comedy-thriller DEATHTRAP, as derived from Ira Levin's hit Broadway play, is a great example. It moves along at a tidy clip, skillfully juggling its clues, being (almost) totally honest with us (even when it is lying to us) and yet never revealing where it is going (even when it is telling us where it might go). It is less a murder mystery movie in the traditional vane than it is a movie about murder mysteries, derived from a play about playwriting. Rather than going backward -- a murder and then an investigation to explain why everything happened -- DEATHTRAP leads us through the crime(s) step by step, leaving ample room for the unexpected; as the ads advise it is less a "whodunit" than a "who'lldoit." <br /><br />DEATHTRAP is often compared (unfavorably, oddly enough) to the play and movie versions of SLEUTH, though in reality it has much more in common with SCREAM, the self-mocking essay on teeny-bopper horror flicks. Like that clever film, DEATHTRAP labels itself (a thriller about thrillers), sets it parameters ("a one-set, five character moneymaker") and then proceeds to deconstruct its genre by revealing itself as "the most outlandish and preposterous set of circumstances entertaining enough to persuade an audience to suspend its disbelief." <br /><br />DEATHTRAP bravely gives us a mystery with only five major characters, two of which are of minimum importance. Henry Jones as a cagey lawyer is on hand mostly for exposition (and to supply us with his penchant for folksy charm) and Irene Worth is all quirks and comic relief as a psychic-cum-sleuth who acts as the nominal detective. That leaves three main characters to be the killer(s) and/or the victim(s): It is a testament to Michael Caine's abilities that as Sidney Bruhl, a down-on-his-luck author of mystery plays, he creates a character who we intrinsically like and trust, even as we recognize immediately that almost everything he says is a lie. As his adoring, if somewhat ditzy wife, Myra, Dyan Canon flirts with being over the top by giving a roller-coaster ride of a performance with a character that by turns seems to be frail or overbearing, crafty or hysterical, timid or bold and uncompromisingly in love with a less than reciprocating Sidney. The third angle of this unexpected triangle is a fledgling playwright named Clifford Anderson played by Christopher Reeve in such a way that we never quite get a handle on just who his character is: enthusiastic preppie wannabe writer, semi-innocent victim or cunningly charming sociopath. As the various character dance around each other, the cleverly dour script adapted by ace scribe Jay Presson Allen manages to be consistently amusing, even as it builds suspense. And even after the final twist (an improvement over the play's finale), it may not be quite clear just who has manipulated who to do what.<br /><br />Lumet is by no means a master of comedy, so he lets his able cast have free reign to flesh out the characters and they all give sharp, theatrical, yet subtle work, with Reeve being particularly noteworthy. But what Lumet does so well is to work skillfully in tight quarters. As he did brilliantly in 12 ANGRY MEN, he takes a one-set play, and with a minimum of opening up, manages to make what could have been cramped, stagy and stagnant seem endlessly photogenic and spacious. The setting, a country home converted from an old windmill, is relatively small, but as designed by Tony Walton it manages to be both cozy and charming, as well as spooky and treacherous. It is so truly difficult to tell where the studio set and the real country house cross boundaries that to a degree the set becomes a sixth character. And as the scene of the crime, it is a most inviting deathtrap indeed. | positive |
Obviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called "humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused | negative |
I didn't have many expectation going into the film, but I thought it was fantastic. Pierce Brosnan is outstanding in a very different role. He has dumped the slick armani suits for a ridiculous look and pays off showing that he is an excellent actor. Pierce and Greg Kinnear play off each other great, and make for one of the better buddy pairings in a long time. The humor is dark, the performances by Brosnan, Kinnear, and Hope Davis are great, mix that with a touching element to the story about friendship, and you have a great film. This is probably one of the better buddy comedies in a long time. This is a film that definitely shows that we can expect great things in the post-Bond era of Brosnan's career. | positive |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.