review
stringlengths 32
13.7k
| sentiment
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
and generally speaking, you will eventually have to research this little gem. When describing I Changed My Sex, or Glen Or Glenda as it is better known, I must echo the thoughts of Andrew Smith, who so hit the nail on the head when he wrote "If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering". The film is both hilarious and tragic, yet it moves with a strange rhythm of its own that leaves one in no doubt that its author knows and means every word he is saying during its running length. Wood, bless him, had some of the loftiest ambitions as a director, wanting to promote peace, understanding, and even acceptance, in the 1950s of all times. When Tim Burton recreated a viewing of Glen Or Glenda by studio execs for his biopic, he showed the execs laughing and telling each other that this had to be a put-on. More than fifty years later, there are still people fighting just to be given the kind of respect that the "normal" take for granted, so I say it most certainly is not.<br /><br />No, the real comedy in Glen Or Glenda is the sheer ineptitude Wood displays in composing his message. Directors frequently use stock footage when they can find some that suits their purposes, and can be edited to fit with their own footage. Ed Wood used stock footage indiscriminately, and Tim Burton's biopic celebrated the fact with a scene in which Wood as played by Johnny Depp bets that he could make an entire film out of stock footage. Sadly, the real Ed Wood died before he had a chance, but Glen Or Glenda is the closest he ever came. The IMDb states that twenty percent of this sixty-something minute film is stock footage, and it is never difficult to guess which footage. Footage of busy highways, planes flying overhead, poor lightning effects, soldiers doing their thing, they're all used in a haphazard manner, sometimes repeatedly, and they often only have a loose connection to the story Wood is trying to tell. Had Wood been able to sit back and think about what he is trying to do for a while, there is no telling what kind of heights he could have achieved.<br /><br />Wood himself appears in the film as the titular character, a confused transvestite who imagines himself as a woman named Glenda. Aside from the daring manner in which he attempts to make his point, Wood makes one hideous woman. Having found myself out on the fringe of a society that thinks I am "disabled" and need to be "cured" myself, I honestly found myself hoping for the best outcome for Wood's character. In order to make his point, however, Wood weaves in short stories of two other transvestites. One of them takes the extreme step of enduring a sex change in order to become a woman, the other finds himself so disenfranchised that he fears being arrested again so much he commits suicide. The scary thing about this film is that if you edited out the transvestism and substituted such disenfranchisements as my position on the autistic spectrum or such things as schizophrenia, very little of the film would even need to be changed. That is how little society has learned since Ed Wood was a boy.<br /><br />The other significant personality in Glen Or Glenda is Bela Lugosi, whom Wood shoehorned into the film. Speculation varies upon Wood's motives, but the accepted theory is that Wood wanted to help revive Lugosi's career, and would do anything in order to achieve this. With the exception of taking his time to carefully construct a good film, that is. In Glen Or Glenda, Wood makes usage of Lugosi that was best described in Flying Saucers Over Hollywood as "bizarre". Lugosi plays a character billed as The Scientist, but comes off more as an omnipotent puppet master. People who have not seen Ed Wood films before the biopic will think Tim Burton made up the "beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep" speech. If anything, Burton was being restrained about which bizarre speech to use in depicting Wood-ian dialogue. Nothing can prepare you for seeing the speeches in their original context, not even Criswell's hilarious ranting during Plan 9 From Outer Space.<br /><br />Observant types will also note the presence of Delores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time. Again, Burton dramatises her reaction to seeing the script for the first time, whereas the film portrays her as being accepting and forward-thinking. I cannot help but feel that Burton's portrayal is more accurate, as Fuller looks extremely uncomfortable in her role. She only appears for about fifteen minutes, but her delivery seems so mechanical, so lifeless, that she somehow manages to seem less talented than her cast-mates, if such a thing is possible. Whether Wood's direction was better-focused in this case than usual is hard to determine, but if the ability of the support cast to leave the stars (with the obvious exception of Bela) in the dust is any guide, then it should come as no surprise that Fuller would only appear in a very small role within one other Wood film. That she went on to write a number of hit songs tells you she made the right decision to stay behind the camera. While Wood would appear before the camera again, it was never as more than a cameo, a walk-on, or a bit-part.<br /><br />I gave Glen Or Glenda a one out of ten. I generally only give this rating to films that are so bad they become entertaining as a result. Bold and well-intentioned as it was, Glen Or Glenda fits that description to a T. | negative |
I caught this as part of the Cartoon Noir package at the Clinton Street Theater in Portland, and it was simply brilliant; the saving grace of what was an other wise forgettable to just plain bad grouping of films.<br /><br />A perfect use of deep black and pure white, with excellent, yet simple animation, this is simply a story of a cat chasing the moon. Funny, charming, and touching. A small piece of heaven for cat lovers, romantics, and any one else who appreciates how beautiful simplicity can be. If it's in your town, see it. This one short is worth the price of admission. | positive |
That magical moment in life, that point between the beautiful innocence of childhood, and the confusing whirlwind that marks adulthood . . . this is what this movie is all about. <br /><br />Danni (wonderfully played by Reese Witherspoon) is right at that moment in life when the movie starts. She swoons over Elvis, playing his records and wishfully thinking about love. Maureen her sister will soon be off to college, has no trouble with attracting boys, is beautiful, and seems to have it all figured out although she doesn't. She dates a local loser whos father is also after her, and just wishes she could find a decent boy and be swept off her feet. Danni like most young teenagers wishes she could be anyone else but herself because most teenagers think that who they are just isn't good enough. She wants to be Maureen but doesn't see that she is beautiful herself.<br /><br />The moment adulthood begins to intrude itself upon her life is when she meets Court Foster for the first time. Court whos father has recently died has moved to their old farm to work it with his mother and two younger brothers. He has been thrust responsibility when he should be having fun. On one particular hot day he goes to the pond and jumps in only to find Danni skinny dipping. They yell and argue and Danni leaves. But they see each other a day later when Courts mother is invited to Danni's to visit old friends(Danni's Parents). Danni becomes attracted to Court, and Court to Danni. She is a tomboy and is spunky, has attitude and says whats on her mind. <br /><br />Court is 17 and Danni 14 and he knows it but they continue to grow closer with their days at the pond between Court working the farm. By the time Court kisses her one day, Danni is smitten. Danni's father tells her to invite Court to the house and he does. but things are uncomfortable for Court on his "sort of date". The silence though is broken by his meeting with Maureen who has yet to see Court. One look between the two and its all over. The looks of pain and defeat on Danni's face are both beautiful in their trueness to life and painful at the same time. The rest of the movie I will not tell but the movie has more to it than a relationship between a boy and two sisters.<br /><br />The greatness of the movie is in its depiction of lifes moments both beautiful and painful and the relationship between two sisters whose love is tested by both a boy that they love, and the pain they must endure both together and individually. Danni eventually marks her entrance into the world when she sees that the world is unfair, painful, and maybe even a little less hopeful than when the movie started. Few movies can truly capture the wonder of childhood and the pain of adulthood so perfectly. This movie has since the first time I watched it stuck in my mind. Its in the my Top 100 movie list and deservedly so. I only wish more movies like this were made, because if so . . . my faith in Hollywood would be a lot better. | positive |
WOW! i didn't know that someone would make this movie! its awful! I have written down 5 things that can tell why u do not want to see this movie.<br /><br />number 1: "its the biggest rave ever" where is the that rave? i could only see a few people dancing around.. <br /><br />2. when they are on the rave,they can ONLY see blood everywhere,no people,two ruined tents and one stage.. and what do they do!? they drink!<br /><br />3.the worst actors i have ever seen! the captain and his crew.. awful! <br /><br />4. when one of the people is firing an ordinary gun, he shoots almost 30 times without reloading! <br /><br />5. i didn't knew every person in the world could fight as a pro! must be a new thing..<br /><br />i wonder what the producer was thinking! "this is going to be a big hit, its gonna be a classic" .. sure u dumb s**t anyway don't see this movie, its a waist of time. MY EYES ARE STILL BLEEDING! | negative |
and totally non-scary film. The characters doesn't interest at all, and most of the time is spent in a car. The dog is at best ugly, never really scary. To interest, a more threatening menace would have been needed, at least a few people you care for and evokes some emotions in you. And, not the least, something interesting must happen. Something unexpected. As it is, this film just drags on and on, in what seems like forever. Maybe a Saint Bernhard was not that smart to choose as the Terrible Threat to life and society?<br /><br />In most scary movies/thrillers/mystery, just whatever genre, there must be characters that sparks interest and makes you want to know what happens. Here you really don't care, you just wait for it all to stop, and wondering if it wouldn't be better to see something else. One of the weakest King adaptations. | negative |
A critical and financial flop when first release, the critics have turned around and stated that this film ison of the Director's best. A La Ronde like feel to the film quickly develops as the guys from a detective agency (Ben Gazzara, John Ritter and Blaine Novak) persue, fall in and out of love with some of the most quirky and beautiful women seen on film (Audrey Hepburn, Colleen Camp, Dorothy Stratten and Patti Hansen). Much of the script was ad-libbed or re-written on the day of shooting which gives the film a breezy feel. Ben Gazzara is excellent as the head detective persuing Audrey Hepburn after dropping singer Colleen Camp and seeing cab-driver Patti Hansen on the side. John Ritter ineptly follows Dorothy Stratten and immediately falls in love with her. Blaine Novak has a few girls he is chasing (including Joyce Hyser and Elizabeth Pena). This film has some great performances by a supurb cast. Standouts are Audrey Hepburn (she doesn't have a line in the first half of the film). Ben Gazzara has never been better (and an inspiring choice for a romantic lead) and Colleen Camp has one of her best roles as the manic country singer Christy Miller. She is a delight to watch as she fires off her lines in a rat-a-tat-tat delivery. Highly Recommended! ********* stars! | positive |
First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.<br /><br />There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!<br /><br />PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!<br /><br />I feel scammed. | negative |
This is such a revered and studied film, a classic among Hitchcock's many, it takes no cajoling to want to watch it again. Yet you think: can it hold up even when the huge (and clever, and amazing) trick of the plot is no surprise?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />And for starters there is the start, a profoundly beautiful and slick telling of the really the whole story, the gist of it. Two taxis, two men shown with their shoes, each walking onto the train, sitting then across from each other, and, oops, a mistake, a little nudge, and the conversation begins, and we see the men themselves. They are interchangeable. <br /><br />The tone here is characteristic of Hitchcock, as it is in many horror and suspense films-- cheery and light. We know entering the film, however, that this won't be the case, so already we are worried. What, after all, is about to go wrong?<br /><br />A lot. In truly Hitchcock fashion, it is a purely innocent man (nearly always a man) who faces injustice, who is trapped by circumstance threatening what is most valuable to him. The innocent in this case, tennis player Guy Haynes, is played with an innocence that is believable--his collegiate politeness in that first scene, for example, as he realizes the other man is a little cuckoo, is just what you or I might do. The not-so-innocent man is the self- absorbed and scarily intelligent spoiled child, Bruno Anthony, played with utter brilliance by Robert Walker. (This uncanny performance is equivalent to that of another Hitchcock wacko, played by Anthony Perkins in Psycho.) So from scene one, on the train (and the train, really gorgeous!), we have the two leads and we have the mind-blowing and utterly simple and ultimately devastating plot, from the first novel by Patricia Highsmith, who also wrote the books behind the two Mr. Ripley movies. And it doesn't hurt that the screenplay was co- written by Raymond Chandler himself, who knows something about economy and clever dialog. And crime.<br /><br />And of course there is more than just the first scene. What to note? Well, that smarty of a senator's daughter (I thought she was terrific) is Hitchcock's daughter, Patricia, who is still with us (as of 2009; she also had a role in Psycho). And there is a characteristic landmark location for a key scene in the film--the tennis courts in the Hamptons, known to us as the site of the U.S. Open. The fantastic last full scene with the carousel is the only place where Hitchcock moves into a kind of slow and steady montage, building up the suspense by making it surreal. The fear gets positively fattening with the laughing children and the old man crawling underneath it all. And when it collapses in a crash--that's all backprojected on a set, one of the more naturalistic uses by a director known for not worrying about the realism of his back projections.<br /><br />The photography is that perfect Hollywood stunning without becoming so stylized (as in some noir films) that it is an object in its own right. Look again at the first scene, or the shooting (and editing) of Haynes entering the house for what the audience thinks is a murder. This is sophisticated construction. When we are not completely surprised that it's Bruno in the bed, that only proves that the director has us on our toes. Something unexpected is always expected.<br /><br />Are there glitches? Who knows? It depends on what kind of falseness you can accept (or embrace) as beautiful style. The scene where Bruno is choking the old woman at a party is both brilliant (the woman, played by Norma Varden, is a caricature so believable it takes your breath away) and marred by his looking at the senator's daughter and being triggered into a deadly trance by her glasses, and her resemblance to his earlier victim. This is a mid-20th Century idea of psychology that intrudes on many of Hitchcock's efforts. (The end of Psycho, for starters.)<br /><br />The Wikipedia article on the film smartly emphasizes the consistent doubling of things in the movie, from the main characters to the murder victim and the senator's daughter. This echoes in lots of little ways--two men trail him to the tennis court, two men accompany the victim to the amusement park, and so on. There can be too much made of this, but it does supply an aesthetic consistency above and below our consciousness. Don't forget, there are meant to be two murders--it is the lack of the second murder, the inability to create a doubling in that case, that causes Bruno to unravel.<br /><br />Walker the actor had emotional problems and was institutionalized in the year before this movie was shot, and just afterwards, he died from a reaction to a drug used to calm one of his outbursts. Though he appeared in other films, Strangers on a Train is easily his tour-de- force. Farley Granger had a long career that never quite saw him break into true stardom, though his style can have a peculiar nervous sweetness that really works, especially in They Live by Night. <br /><br />And if you watch this one for the first or third time, do look for the chilling and hilarious scene at the tennis match where the crowd's heads all move back and forth in unison-- except for Bruno's. He is staring out without moving his head straight at us. As the trailer for the movie says, after this movie, you won't be talking to "strangers on a train." | positive |
This is truly one of the worst movies ever made--and I don't mean in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way. Eddie Murphy is a great comic, and it is a testament to how bad this movie is that it nearly killed his career. The writing and direction are inept, the sets and staging about as imaginative as a Brady Bunch episode, and the acting shows just how bad a great cast can be when they have absolutely nothing to work with. If it weren't for the costumes--which, aside from Eddie Murphy's ego, seem to account for the major part of the budget--you would swear this thing was slapped together by a bunch of high schoolers wasted on peppermint Schnapps. That anyone could find this travesty in any way funny or entertaining is mind-boggling. It's probably no coincidence that the misguided souls who are praising this stinker are barely literate. But if your idea of hilarity is Della Reese getting her "pinkie toe" shot off, then by all means, put aside your drool cup and go rent this movie. | negative |
A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...<br /><br />1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.<br /><br />2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.<br /><br />3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.<br /><br />4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.<br /><br />5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.<br /><br />6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own. | negative |
As far as I am concerned, this film noir had two totally different things going for it as opposed to the film noirs I am used to viewing: 1 - the setting is Paris, France; 2 - there is 28-minute scene with no dialog.<br /><br />Both make this movie a bit unique, at least to English-speaking film noir fans. Actually, an American, Jules Dussain, shot the film, so it's not entirely a European film. Initially, I was disappointed in this after I had watched the first 40 minutes. It's an expensive DVD and I was bored. However, once that silent segment started - the actual heist (you already know what's it about), the film picked up considerably and just got better and better.<br /><br />In fact, I thought the best part of the story was what happened after the heist. The best aspect of the entire film was the cinematography. This is what makes the disc worth owning. It's excellent film noir photography and a real travelogue for those of us who have never seen Paris...and this is Paris in the mid 1950s. There are lots of bleak-but-interesting rain-soaked Paris streets and buildings I found fascinating to view. In fact, there were many more of those great shots than of London in the much better known film, The Third Man.<br /><br />The lead actor in here, Jean Servais, I think his name is, also is interesting to view. Someone described his face as a cross between Humphrey Bogart and Harry Dean Stanton, and that sums it up perfectly. A warning for those not expecting profanity or nudity in a classic film. This is France, not the United States, so there is a little bit of both in here. I appreciate the DVD offering the choice of subtitles or a dubbed version, too. | positive |
I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.<br /><br />As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.<br /><br />For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment." | negative |
OK, so Herc is a hunk... but the rest of the 3 hours were wasted, wasted... oh the humanity!<br /><br />Poor Sean Astin had to follow his master up the very same hills of New Zealand that ... wait! Couldd it be? Someone in the production crew of Lord of the Rings was making home movies in his spare time! Yes that's it!<br /><br />I wish I could at least say he was promising.<br /><br />The Special effects were often laughable.<br /><br />But, Herc was a hunk.<br /><br />NH | negative |
There have been many (well, more than a few in any case) attempts over the past 30 years to create film that has an "otherworldly" appearance. Supposing that this is a Film Director's wish to distance himself from other movies, or simply to gloss over the low-budget and shabby look, "Begotten" is on the top echelon of this pile.<br /><br />Apart from the peerless "Eraserhead", anyway.<br /><br />Merhige's painstaking process of artificially degrading his film changes it's structure completely (imagine what this film would have looked like in glorious, standard Technicolour) - It can almost be envisaged as an artifact from another, unknown culture. Some images are so far removed from what we expect to see on the screen, they disturb mainly as they are dislocated. This is not "Last House On The Left" disturbance, more like leaving-your-cave-for-the-first-time-and-seeing-the-sun disturbance.<br /><br />Watch this Fever-Dream if you get the chance, and relish. Remember, they make other, more standard films every day. They can wait. | positive |
One of the best movies I ever saw - a classic "Matrix" movie. For many years, I have been trying to get it on VHS or DVD - to no avail. The German movie/TV industry still prefers to let valuable cultural contributions (and this is Fassbinder, after all!) rot away and collect dust in some archive rather than distribute it commercially (and make a lot of money with it if that is what stimulates them instead of the promotion of creative thinking). Though, the WDR once told me if I paid DM 200.00 to check the copyright (non-reimbursable), and then DM 8 per minute of copying, plus the cost for the materials, then they will consider preparing a (single!) copy for me. Some way to sell something! The same problem we have with many other TV movies or series like "So weit die Füße tragen", "Sonntagseltern", "Kellerkinder", and others. Excellent TV series - never to be heard of again. Germany, wake up!<br /><br />UPDATE from March 2007: Last year, I finally could get a DVD copy from the "Mittschnittservice" of the WDR for about 50+ Euro. Great! | positive |
Uzumaki, is a visually stunning Film, and I don't think anyone is going to be able to argue that. But, unfortunately, the story somewhat falls flat.<br /><br />The film nevertheless is very entertaining. It uses it's wild style to tell a somewhat non-existant story. The film almost works, just based on it's characters and style, but In my opinion, leaves something to be desired. | positive |
Okay, the only reason I watched this movie is because Krista Allen is in it. Since I admit to watching Days of our lives... I know her as Billie. Oh sure, perhaps there will be a reason to watch this movie.. that would be the soft porn area. They seem to exel at that. And little else. I would hope anyone renting/buying this movie rented it only for the sex scene's. Because if they bought/rented it for anything else, say quality tv, they may die of a heart attack. This movie involves little imagination whatsoever. While I do have a good laugh at it's stupidity, and perhaps I'll buy it myself, I am but a fool. Rent before you buy on this one. 2 out of 10. (note I have yet to give a movie a 1 star. the sensual scene's alone gave itself and up from a 1. if they hadn't a straight 1 in the pot and I want a refund if it hadn't.) | negative |
I have to admit that I liked this film much more than I expected to. Will Smith has that clean-cut charm that you just can't help but like. The plot was a minor twist on basic romantic comedy stuff, somewhat reminiscent of Jane Austen's "Emma". This guy Kevin James has a real flair for comic timing and physical comedy. I have never seen his TV show, but he was cast very well in this film. Amber Valletta was good enough. I can't remember why she was a rich celebrity in this film, but if she was supposed to be an actress or model, then the casting might have left something to be desired. I enjoyed Julie Ann Emery, and wish she'd had a larger part. But, saving the best for last, Eva Mendes more or less stole the show. Her beauty, and charm, and just the right amount of standoffishness had me glued to the screen whenever she was there. I hope to see more of her in the future. This film is definitely worth checking out. | positive |
This sequel to the above - and the final entry in the "Kharis" series - is slightly more enjoyable on the whole but it's also more contrived (hell, we even get a singing barmaid/hostess!): Peter Coe is easily the least charismatic of the various Egyptian high priests we've seen during the course of these films, and Martin Kosleck as his henchman seems uninterested in the proceedings; Kurt Katch, then, is saddled with a ridiculous accent as the man who discovers the newly reincarnated Princess Ananka: the latter, in the form of Virginia Christine (later a much-used character actress) gets her most substantial 'role' and, indeed, the sequence of her resurrection from the swamps is a highlight not only of this film but the entire series. Unfortunately, here too, Chaney has precious little to do as once again the emphasis is on Ananka, as I've said; his Mummy (to which he returned most often at Universal - apart, naturally, from his signature role of The Wolf Man!) remains, without a doubt, his least memorable monster for the studio. | negative |
TV pilots, don't you love them? Quinn Martin tried this one out after being successful in a bunch of other TV detective movies, but this one goes nowhere except in the realm of MST where it belongs. Roy Thinnes is Diamond Head who takes orders from Aunt Mary to find super spy Lovejoy, I mean Tree. Zulu and Tso-Tsing are there for ethnic comic relief and not much else. Tree sucks as a bad guy despite all his disguises that makes him look exactly the same as he normally does. There's more unnatural clothing fiber here than you can ever imagine (required in the 1970's)and the show itself is so anti-climatic. Why did it not go to series? You figure it out, it's quite blatant. Again it's fun for MST, but not a lot else!! | negative |
One year after 'Love Thy Neighbour' made its I.T.V. debut, it followed the route taken by 'On The Buses' and 'Steptoe & Son' by graduating onto the big screen, in a picture made by Hammer Films. It opens with a stirring patriotic speech lauding the virtues of England's green and pleasant land, then cuts to a shot of Eddie and Bill walking up a street, arguing furiously. This escalates into a strange sequence of white and black neighbours vandalising their each other's homes. At least the original theme tune is retained ( even if it is sung by someone other than Stuart Gillies ).<br /><br />The local paper - 'The Gazette' - is holding a contest to find the best neighbours, the winners landing a Mediterranean cruise. Barbie suggests to Joan that they should enter. The thing is, can Bill and Eddie stay friends long enough to win it? That's the main part of the plot. The film is by and large episodic. One chunk is lifted directly from Season 1, namely Bill and Eddie going to the Club pretending to be on 'union business'. In reality they're going to see a stripper ( not meeting two girls ). Another portion of the movie has Bill, along with other black factory workers ( in the series he was the only one ), breaking a strike Eddie has helped bring about by various ploys ( including being smuggled in through the gates in beer barrels ). While another ( seemingly inspired by Powell and Driver's 'For The Love Of Ada' ) sees Eddie's talkative mother ( the magnificent Patricia Hayes ) getting friendly with Bill's father ( Charles Hyatt ).<br /><br />The climax to Episode 1 Season 1 reappears in an expanded form. Bill once more puts on paint and a towel to terrify Eddie, but his friends join him, and they dance round a drum containing a naked Booth, so that they can pretend to cook and eat him. Eddie then has to make his way home in the nude ( surprisingly, there is less nudity here than there was in Episode 2 Season 2 ).<br /><br />The film ends with the Reynolds and the Booths winning the 'Love Thy Neighbour' contest, and taking the cruise together, but there's an unexpected twist involving Joan's sex-mad brother Cyril ( James Beck - 'Private Walker' of 'Dad's Army' ), who is working as a steward.<br /><br />This is your typical '70's sitcom-into-movie, with all the faults usually prevalent in such films. The laughs are scattered about, and interest wanes after about half an hour. The cast is augmented by familiar faces such as Melvyn Hayes ( cast as 'Terry', a character from Episode 2 Season 1, played on that occasion by Leslie Meadows ), Bill Fraser ( as the factory manager ), Anna Dawson, Andria Lawrence ( who seems to have been in every '70's British comedy film, mostly cast as nymphomaniacs ), and Arthur English. The director, John Robins, was also responsible for the 'Man About The House' movie.<br /><br />Funniest moment - while Eddie sleeps in a quiet part of the factory, Bill paints his face black. The first he knows of it is when the manager's secretary screams in terror. The tables have been turned! | positive |
After reading the terrible reviews of this movie, including comments said to be quoted from Colin, I almost didn't bother to add this film to my Firth Film collection, however being the Firth Fan which I am, intrigue got the better of me!<br /><br />To my surprise I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had suspense,drama and intrigue and V.sexy Colin scene's. The plot kept me guessing right until the end credits and I felt that once one got past Jennifer Rubens opening scene's that the actress played her role convincingly. Colin was as brilliant as ever and its great to see him play a character from the 'Dark side', a 'chill went down my spine' and after watching this I can't wait to see Colins recent film 'Trauma'soon to be out on DVD. <br /><br />OK, perhaps it 'wasn't a film that was 'in your face' so to speak and one couldn't 'go to sleep on the plot',especially towards the end as there was a lot going on, but that was what I liked about it, the acting was subtle, thankfully not overdone (like many suspense thrillers), this made the film all the more chilling to watch. One just couldn't second guess what Colins character (Ross Talbert), or for that matter Jennifer Rubens character(Jamie Harris) was going to do next, and there were quite a few surprises in store, I sat on the edge of my seat throughout, with a cushion handy!!<br /><br />Personally I am very glad that I watched 'Playmaker' and I shall certainly rewind and view again. I think that any Firth Fan would benefit from watching this film, if they didn't like the plot then just watch Colin ;-)) | positive |
I saw this movie when I was really little. It is, by far, one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Now, normally, I like weird movies, but this was just a bit too much.<br /><br />There's not much of a plot to the movie. If anything, it starts out like Toy Story, where toys come to life, and Raggedy Ann and Andy go on an adventure to rescue their new friend, Babette. From there, craziness ensues. There's the Greedy, the Looneys, a sea monster named Gazooks, and a bunch of pirates singing show tunes, all of which just made the movie weirder. Also, I can't help but feel that Babette is annoying and a bit too whiny. She definitely didn't help the movie.<br /><br />Now, even though I didn't like this movie, there were a few cute parts. I liked the camel's song. Even though it was a song about being lonely, it had a friendly feel to it. Then, there was Sir Leonard. While most of the Looneys were just plain nuts, Sir Leonard was the most interesting and probably the funniest. King Koo Koo was just a little dirtbag that made Dr. Evil look like a serious villain. Also, there was Raggedy Andy's song, No Girl's Toy. It was definitely good song for little boys who wanted to act tough. But, honestly, even these things didn't make the movie any better. (But remember, this is just my perspective.) <br /><br />While I personally wouldn't recommend this movie, even I have to admit, it does have its charming moments. See it if you're interested, but only if you're in the mood for something "really" out of the ordinary. | negative |
I saw this movie with very low expectations. I didn't know a lot about it so I wasn't sure if it was going to be worth it.<br /><br />The story did an OK job of getting you curious about these ruins they travel to. The suspense continues when the Mayans show up and force them to stay at the ruins.<br /><br />Then the movie turns from somewhat suspenseful to pointless. The amount of gore found in this movie did not balance out compared to whether it was truly necessary or used more for shock value.<br /><br />The fact that they didn't make any attempt to fight the vines from hell. They had fire and didn't try to burn it nor did they try to cut it with a knife to see if they could destroy it or not. They quickly jumped into a victim role and their helpless attitude was not real. It reminded me of the old horror movies where the people just scream and yell and don't have half a brain to try to fight back. | negative |
SPOILERS THROUGH: <br /><br />I really am in the minority on this one but I liked this movie. It's not a classic but it's definitely involving and quite an adrenalin fueled ride. I definitely thought it was worth at least a 7 rating.<br /><br />Perhaps the reason I liked it is because I haven't seen the original.Something tells me that with a movie like this it's strongest fans will be the people who have not seen the original version and thus, have little to compare it to. This was not a masterpiece but I did get into it quite a lot and it actually made me want to see the original.<br /><br />There were a few things I liked about it. One was the casting of Kowalkski. Viggo Mortenson was superb and really brought a lot of charisma to the role. Since the bulk of the movie fell on his shoulders, he really needed to be excellent and he was. This was a great role for him.<br /><br />Another interesting thing about Vansishing Point was the fact that it's made for television. I had no idea this was the case when watching it. It sure seemed like a major motion picture and I would never have guessed this was not a big screen release.<br /><br />I also found the story to be very absorbing. I'm not one for action movies but I got sucked into this. Plus it was a lot more then an action movie in that there was drama, mysticism, a love story, quirky people every which way you turned. (I didn't even recognize Priestly.) And it was touching. This was not a great movie but it is watchable.<br /><br />And then there's the ending. It packs a strong punch and if one's been involved in the story up to that point, it's very difficult not to be transfixed at the very end. I am not sure how I feel about the ending. The implication was that Kowalkski survived and though I'm highly skeptical of HOW that would be possible, it is a movie and realism isn't an ingredient that's always in the mix when making a movie.<br /><br />So I'd have to say I found the end incredibly unrealistic but very touching in a manipulative kind of way, which I don't usually like but for some reason, is almost forgivable in this movie. Admittedly, a lot of things were just props for the plot(could the villains have been anymore stereotypical?) But the makers got a lot right even if they got many things wrong as well. However, having said that, I will admit I can understand why someone who's a major fan of the original would hate this version because, though I have not seen the original, I have seen many original movies I loved being remade with terrible results. (My big dislike is actually sequels.) But I can understand the low ratings if the original is of that high a quality.<br /><br />People have compared this to Smoky and the Bandit. How about a road version of "Legends Of The Fall" meets "Thelma and Louese" as well? I sure felt touches of both films(both of which I'm a fan of.) I do not think however, that this was a great film. It was better then average to me but far from great. But it was an absorbing, adrenalin fueled, touching movie with excellent casting of the main character. My vote is 7 of 10. | positive |
Apart from the low budget, there never seems to be more than 50 Germans in one scene at any one time, plus the same 2 half tracks, this film is absolute top class. Everything is accurate. That is the point, I think, from the uniforms to to the horror and the disillusionment.Everyone is as grey as the field grey uniforms. Grey men with the life drained out of them. Forget US made Gung ho rubbish like Blackhawk down and Private Ryan. This is one of the best war films ever. Only Cross of Iron beats this for tension and story. Please could we have a proper Un-dubbed German language with English subtitles version in the UK ? Without having to pay ridiculous import charges from Europe. Most other DVD's are multilingual. Why not this one ? | positive |
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! <br /><br />If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH! | negative |
the Germans all stand out in the open and get mowed down with a machine gun. the Good guys never die, unless its for dramatic purposes. the "plot" has so many holes its laughable. (Where did the German soldiers go once they rolled the fuel tank towards the train? Erik Estrada? Please!) And the whole idea, hijacking a train? How moronic is that! The Germans KNOW where you are going to go, its not like you can leave the track and drive away! What a waste. I would rather bonk myself on the head with a ball peen hammer 10 times then have to sit through that again. I mean, seriously, it FELT like it was made in the 60s, but it was produced in 88!! 1988!! the A-Team is more believable than this horrid excuse for a movie. Only watch it if you need a good laugh. This movie is to Tele Sevalas what Green Beret was to John Wayne. | negative |
I hoped to learn something from this movie, but I was disappointed. It is all about Rommel and lauds him as a great general, but at no time in this entire movie did we ever get an idea of why he was great. What made him so successful? Was it his drive, his unwillingness to accept defeat, his discipline with his men? I was looking for a Patton-like rendition that really gets into the character, but this fell way flat. Most of the dialog is contrived and sensationalized, and feels stale and artificial. There is some good action here and there, but not much. The tail end of the story, which discusses his involvement in the plot to assassinate Hitler, was the most informative part and probably the most interesting. But as a history lesson on Germany's greatest general, this was a failure. | negative |
Why do I give this 1974 porn movie 7 points? Because I watched it. And I found it hilarious! Aliens, their weird spaceship, their weird helmets... my God, was that a sight. And all what these desperate alien women need is semen from the earth.<br /><br />And where do they look for it? In upper Bavaria, Germany. And that is where the main fun comes from: In Europe (and more so in German-speaking countries), Bavaria is seen as a traditional and backward region. And then the actors are so helpless with the alien women. Well, there have been films about people being unable to deal with women like the "American Pie" series.<br /><br />But what this film achieved is a true, funny weirdness. You constantly wonder how they came up with these crackpot ideas. But it was 1974, and looking back 35 years fills one with a kind of nostalgia. You've never seen a film like that.<br /><br />And if you don't mind seeing the casual pubic hairs and breasts, watch it once. It is a comedy essentially, not a porn flick. | positive |
You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .<br /><br />One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool. | negative |
The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on! | negative |
If you love kung-fu films and you haven't seen this movie, you are cheating yourself. This movie is one of the only kung-fu cheapies that could be recommended for fans of all types of film. Normally, it takes a die-hard fan of the genre to see anything in these films, but this one has it all! The story is well told, and complete. The fight scenes are great, and tend to end before you're completely bored with them (unlike Crouching Tiger). Throw in a little mystery and torture and you've got yourself one heck of a movie. See this one at all costs. Heck, my wife even enjoyed it.<br /><br />Wu Du it!<br /><br />9 out of 10<br /><br /> | positive |
I was looking through the movie listings in my area on yahoo and seen a movie that had not been advertised. I looked closer and noticed that Peter Falk and Paul Reiser were in it. Having watched "Mad about you", once, I was not a fan of Paul Reiser. However, I am a big fan of Peter Falk. So the spouse and I took a chance. We were both swept into this story. The beautiful scenery, the heartfelt acting and the sense of family and moral values that are seldom seen in movies and the world today. Not that sappy emoted junk, but real life situations from real life-like people. I even have to say, Paul Reiser was excellent, although, I still won't watch "Mad about you". I don't know where this movie has gone. I heard it was put out in limited release. It should be shared with the world. It is one of the finest movies I have seen. M. | positive |
It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague. | negative |
When Alfred Hitchcock made STRANGERS ON A TRAIN it was a harbinger for the bulk of the film going public that he was back at the top of his form. From 1946 to 1950 his films were not box office successes, and his contractual arrangement with David O. Selznick ended because of this. Actually he made some really good films in the period, such as NOTORIOUS, SPELLBOUND, UNDER CAPRICORN, ROPE, and (my opinion) STAGESTRUCK. But while NOTORIOUS AND SPELLBOUND were liked, the audiences were turned off by Hitch's attempts at experimentation: his use of a dream sequence by Salvator Dali in SPELLBOUND was acceptable, as was the setting among psychiatrists. But the experiment with long takes in ROPE confused the public (making ignore the merits of that film), and the willingness of Hitch to have the audience fooled by a lie told by a leading character in a flashback was disliked - far more disliked then it deserved to be - in STAGESTRUCK. A matter of bad timing for UNDER CAPRICORN (it was released just as the scandal of it's star Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rosallini broke out) made it seem to be a failure (which it wasn't). THE PARADINE CASE was another failure - and one that really had little in it's favor.<br /><br />With STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, Hitchcock shied away from the special tricks that interested him in the recent films. Instead he concentrated on his favorite themes of shared guilt and mistaken identity. Based on a novel by Patricia Highsmith, the story was of how Guy Haines, a professional tennis player, meets a fan of his - Bruno Anthony, a playboy - who is traveling on a cross-country train at the same time as the athlete. Bruno is talkative and fawning, and Guy views him as one of the typical fans he has met...if a little eccentric, with his talk of wanting to be on the first rocket to outer space. But Bruno knows all about Guy's personal problems. He is married to a promiscuous young woman named Miriam, and is in love with Anne Morton, daughter of a Senator. Bruno knows that Miriam won't divorce her successful celebrity husband. Bruno mentions how he can sympathize - he hates his stepfather, who is constantly criticizing him. Then Bruno mentions (sort of off the cuff) an idea he has about two men - technically strangers - exchanging murders for each other and then committing two perfect, unsolvable crimes instead of fumbling them. Guy listens to the idea - and agrees it is an interesting idea. The train reaches Guy's destination, and his last comment is like a validation of the idea. He just does not realize that the "eccentric" Bruno is a sociopath, and believes Guy has just agreed to the two killing each other's foe!<br /><br />It's a wonderfully simple plot actually. Bruno, of course does kill Miriam, but he fully expects Guy to live up to the murder agreement and kill his stepfather. Guy is horrified - and worse, he finds that he is the police department's number one suspect. When Bruno, to encourage Guy, mentions he has the latter's lighter (he pocketed it on the train) and can plant it at the murder site, Guy finds himself in deeper problems - how to avoid the police, and how to control (if possible) the insane Bruno?<br /><br />Hitch always planned the shots of his film carefully, so that from the start we see both our "heroes" from their feet heading towards their fateful meeting in the train with each other. There are constant cross-contacts used in the film to show how the two men are drawn into each other's orbits. It is like fate drawing them together. Yet both have their own personality - and Hitch, with a typical twist, makes the mad Bruno actually more of an attractive figure. His scheme may be vicious (it will kill two people if successful, and he will have Guy live up to the agreement no matter what) but he has a zest for life. One suspects that once Guy too had one, but his marriage's failure, coupled with his now dating a socially prominent woman, has made him more circumspect and dull than he was.<br /><br />The cast is good too. Robert Walker probably had his finest role in this film (only a year before his death). It was a far cry from the homespun boy-next-door of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY or THE CLOCK. His lithe figure also looked quite elegant in tales in several scenes. As Guy Farley Granger acts like a cousin of his co-murderer in ROPE, especially as the circumstances make him increasingly suspicious to the authorities (as his earlier role made his jittery behavior increasingly suspicion to Jimmy Stewart). As for the ladies, Kasie Rogers is properly sluttish as Miriam - enabling the audience to be prepared for her demise (in a famous sequence shot in the reflection of her eyeglasses) so that they actually are cheering Bruno in his act of evil. Patricia Hitchcock appears as the younger sister of Anne (Ruth Roman), who bears a close resemblance to Miriam, and accidentally sets off Bruno at a social occasion. She plays this rare role well. Ruth Roman is properly supportive of Granger, but her role is limiting because she is establishment in her background, and somewhat low keyed. Other supporting performers, Leo G. Caroll as the Senator, Marion Lorne (usually a comedian) as Bruno's dotty mother, and Norma Varden as an unexpected recipient of violence from Walker are all shown to best advantage - all at the hand of a master. | positive |
A brutally straightforward tale of murder and capital punishment by the state. So painfully slow and accurate in the description of capital punishment (from the preparation of the gallow to the victim p***ing in his own pants before dying) it has the power to change your mind about death penalty. The whole Dekalog originated from this story: the Dekalog screenwriter was the powerless lawyer unsuccessfully trying to defend and then console the accused. | positive |
I love the premise, but it's replay value is only for certain parts(the opening scene of course). Some characters are a bit outrageous, but they are entertaining none the less. I think the Ballping sh-t was pushing it. I know it was to show that Nick and Casey were living foul out in LA and to show why Casey quit the lifestyle, I just think that the flashback's story could have been better. Also the Jamaican guy rapping on the phone is clever and entertaining, but once again I think the story was told sloppy. It really seems unbelievable. I actually believe Swordfish (the other movie Woods has written) more than some of the parts in Thursday because the government keeps sh-t a secret all the time, and has organizations set up that the public will never know about.<br /><br />Thursday is the best Quentinesque movie I've seen. I think Woods is imaginative,clever and has witt; however, his work needs more maturation to even to get to the Natural Born Killer script (not Stone's movie) level. How old is he anyway? | positive |
Is it really possible that so many people in this film believe that the girl is a witch? Just because she has dark hair and wears dark make up she is supposed to be a witch? And I got the impression that the film tries to present her as someone who is "different", someone nobody understands... She is just a teenager and some dumb girl in her high school says she is a witch and everyone believes her. Besides, Brandi is either portrayed very badly or the character itself is made to be so... Fake. She didn't convince me that she is not a witch, not that I would believe it in the first place. Everyone accuses her of being a witch and she acts like she is not entirely sure whether she is a witch or not. And the way they dressed her for the court - I see old ladies every day who wouldn't wear that even if it was the last outfit in the world! Brandi's brother also wasn't very convincing... But, you see, the important thing is, that "she put that bad, bad girl back on to the ground at the end of the film". "She has won the battle, proved to everyone she is different".<br /><br />This is probably one of the worst films I've watched in may life, way too shallow. I only watched it because there was nothing else on the TV at the moment, so I was condemned to this trash. Please, do not waste your time watching this film. When I saw the 7-star rating, I nearly fainted... It doesn't deserve it, compared to some other films which are also rated with 7 stars. | negative |
Superb movie. Very good photography of 1969/70 Bolton, which seems now to be a different world. Thoughtful and an excellent dramatisation and production. James Mason a real first class star. It is and I would agree with the above comment that this movie is a national treasure. | positive |
First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude. | negative |
I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.<br /><br />I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.<br /><br />This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.<br /><br />I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.<br /><br />Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV. | negative |
Just reading why this show got canceled makes me rather steamed. This was a favorite of mine as a kid and I always watched it when it came on no matter how many times I saw the episode. Sure the effects were not great, but they were also not horrible either. They did a fairly good job with the costume and it had the nice 70's vibe to it that is always enjoyable to see and hear as the music was also very 70's. It did not really have any villains from the comics, but then most comic book live show adaptations had none to very few actual super villains from the comics. Spidey's powers were a bit different here too, he had his Spidey sense and he could climb walls, but he was not nearly as strong as the Spider-man of the comics. He was super strong though as I do remember an episode where he broke into a room by breaking the door knob off, he just was not the car hurler that the one from the comic book can be. The show was set in Los Angelos so there were not as man buildings to swing from, but they did okay with the web. It is nice that this show actually has the web shooters and not organic shooters of the movie. I love the movies, but part of me wishes they would start over and do the more smarty pants Spidey that has the mechanical web shooters. This show had a good star as Peter Parker and he was okay as Spider-man, it is nice to see a Spidey who does not basically live in the slums like he does in the movies. Neither this show nor the movie though has a Spider-man that is quick with the insult like the one in the comic. Still, this show was fun without being as corny as the Batman show. | positive |
Very funny, well-crafted, well-acted, meticulous attention to detail. A real window into a specific time and place in history. Could almost believe this was a true story in a parallel universe. Interesting how Passport to Pimlico anticipates the Berlin airlift. A definite 10. | positive |
The three names that mean the most to this film are Burt Reynolds, Mark Wahlberg, and Julianne Moore. These three deliver the strongest performances, but the entire cast does a wonderful job. The film although about the porn industry does not let itself get out of hand with it's own sexual premise. On the other hand there were many scenes that involved drug use and although important to understanding the characters lifestyle, I think there was some overkill in this department. Paul Thomas Anderson has not done a great deal of directing, but he may have been picked for this film based on his 1988 work "The Dirk Diggler Story." One thing that was brilliantly portrayed is the family like atmosphere between the characters as they work, live, and party together. Although not a typical family they certainly seem to care for each other. The wonderful soundtrack really helps give you a feel for the period during a time when disco was the rage. There are many disco favorites on it and some other wonderful songs as well.<br /><br />The story is about a gifted young man named Eddie Adams (Wahlberg) that gets invited into the porn industry. He changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes and adult film star almost overnight. Jack Horner (Reynolds) is the director that takes his films very seriously as he believes his work is more than just pornography, but that they are true art. However Dirk becomes overly dependent on drugs and soon heads down a dangerous road where he stands to loose everything. Although a greater focus is placed on the character Dirk there are subplots for the other characters and their trials in life. You will find yourself wishing for and hoping their situations improve. All-in-all a well done film. | positive |
I saw Two Hands back in Sydney a few years ago and it instantly became one of my all-time favourite films. It's got action, adventure, comedy and romance all rolled up into one (and a bit of zen thrown in for good measure). Like much Australian film, the plot is easy to follow yet wonderfully engaging, and Jordan should justly feel proud of his work.<br /><br />Anyway, it was on TV just now on Channel 4 in London, and my two favourite comedy scenes of not just this movie, but indeed any movie, had been cut out! So if you watch this movie, make sure it's the original version. | positive |
Between sweeping, extraordinary scenes within a plethora of Indian locations and a plot which is Bollywood inspired yet grounded in reality, this highly moving film is a must-see for those who love a good romance/adventure. And by this, I mean "good", not a Hollywood or Bollywood easy and contrived happy ending. East meets West in a different take on the buddy film. The performances are inspired and brilliant, the cinematography epic and the plot entertaining, engaging and poignant without a trace of schmaltz or cheap tugging at heartstrings. HARI OM is a sweet film that won't rot your teeth. See it! | positive |
I've read every book to date in the left behind series, and the movie hardly does any of them justice. Sure, I've seen worse movies, but this was incredibly disappointing. This movie would have made a good MST3K episode. The script was a horrible adaptation of the book, and it felt like the actors were reading their lines, instead of actually saying them. The characters were stiff and unlikeable. The effects were cheesy, and looked terribly fake. The ending was awful. First of all, it didn't even go all the way through the first book. Second, it made no sense. If you hadn't read the book, you'd have no idea what was going on. It had to have been the most cheesy, film student-like ending I've ever seen in a movie. I'm upset that I actually paid money for this movie. If by some miracle, it does get wide release, they ought to totally overhaul it and let Hollywood take over. Those two wannabe film producers, and the wannabe director should leave movie making to the professionals. | negative |
Why take a perfectly good original drama, based on a perfectly good novel, and remake it as a quasi-musical? And cast it with actors exclusively lacking in singing or dancing talent? Somewhat akin to "Showgirls" or the two most recent "Star Wars" films, "Lost Horizon" is full of unintentional laughs. Who can forget Sir John Gielgud smiling uneasily in his Dali Lhama outfit, overseeing an interpretive dance to the Republican party ("Family")?<br /><br />Or Sally Kellerman warbling lovingly to George Kennedy, doing her best Cher impression as she hops from one rock to another ("Every Little Thing You Do")? And my favourite, Bobby Van embodying the strength of America's education system ("Question Me An Answer")? I can't wait for the DVD release, as hopefully it will contain comments by Liv Ullmann, who will finally explain what she was thinking when she agreed to do this film! | positive |
Technically I'am a Van Damme Fan, or I was. this movie is so bad that I hated myself for wasting those 90 minutes. Do not let the name Isaac Florentine (Undisputed II) fool you, I had big hopes for this one, depending on what I saw in (Undisputed II), man.. was I wrong ??! all action fans wanted a big comeback for the classic action hero, but i guess we wont be able to see that soon, as our hero keep coming with those (going -to-a-border - far-away-town-and -kill -the-bad-guys- than-comeback- home) movies I mean for God's sake, we are in 2008, and they insist on doing those disappointing movies on every level. Why ??!!! Do your self a favor, skip it.. seriously. | negative |
I have always been a fan of this largely unseen filming of the Gershwin opera, since I last saw it in 1959. As many of you know, it has been unavailable on video or DVD; in fact, the Gershwin family sought to destroy all existing prints.<br /><br />Yet, for some reason--hopefully signaling an end to its opposition, the Gershwin family recently approved the showing of a collector's print at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens. .<br /><br />Well, the wide-screen, Technicolor print was excellent! (Not perfect, but excellent.) The sound was outstanding, in road-show quality stereo. The folks who saw this in its original release wouldn't have seen a much better copy. (The program notes include the original Variety review, which cautions that people might balk at the steep limited-release ticket price of $3.50!)<br /><br />And, as much as I loved it originally, PORGY AND BESS was better than I remembered it. It's just wonderful. Sidney Poitier as Porgy was at the point where his career was just beginning to catch fire, and his charisma shines through. Dorothy Dandridge as Bess is spectacularly beautiful. Brock Peters as Crown is aggressively masculine. Pearl Bailey as Maria provides a few comic moments, although her role is small. And Sammy Davis, Jr., as Sporting Life, steals every scene he's in; he's especially riveting in his two big numbers: "It Ain't Necessarily So" and "There's a Boat that's Leavin' Soon for New York." (That last one won applause in the screening I saw.)<br /><br />PORGY AND BESS is set-bound, but it really doesn't matter when the set is as gorgeous as this one. The costumes are also outstanding.<br /><br />Sidney and Dorothy's singing voices are dubbed in, but they are dubbed in extremely well. The exquisite "Summertime" is sung by Clara, played by a young Diahann Carroll; her singing also is dubbed. (Actually, only Pearl and Sammy do their own vocalizing.)<br /><br />The music is sublime, of course, but what really struck me this time was how much emotion Preminger got out of the story. People were actually sniffling in the audience a number of times--once when Bess sings that beautiful "I Loves You Porgy." And I got a kick out of the audience actually laughing out loud at the lines in "It Ain't Necessarily So." Could it be they had never heard this song before-- or never really listened to it? I believe that much of the emotional impact of this film is due to Poiter and Dandridge's performances--you root for their love to win out.<br /><br />A minor quibble with the 136 minute running time--one or two slow spot, and a stereotypical, Amos-n-Andy kind of scene about Bess seeing a shyster lawyer to get a divorce from Crown, even though she's not even married to him. (I would have cut that.) And the beginning is a little confusing--both title characters are introduced awkwardly--they're part of the movie before you realize who they are.<br /><br />And I don't think Preminger used a single close-up in the entire movie. It all seems to be shot in 3/4, which I'm guessing was his way of working with the wide screen.<br /><br />PORGY AND BESS has always been a cult film for those of us who saw it, for those of us who loved the soundtrack, and for some of us who have only heard about it. Let's hope they find a way to re-release this, and put it out on DVD. It deserves the widest audience possible. | positive |
This is one of my favourite movies EVER... I have seen it about a million times and would never turn down the opportunity to watch it again. In fact, I love it so much that I REALLY wanted to check out the resort where it was filmed on my upcoming vacation... does anyone know the name of it? If so, please email me!!! I watched this movie for the first time when it was first released and I was about Nikki's age and for the longest time I bugged my dad to take me to away somewhere because of course I expected the same thing to happen to me! It's just such an amazing setting and such a cute puppy-love story. This is a definite DVD collector's must! | positive |
Given the nature and origin of the 11 filmakers it is not surprising that this film is at best neutral in its stance towards America. Probably the most 'anti' segment comes from Ken Loach who is definitely not towing the British New Labour party line. Although those events of a year ago are shocking and painful to most Americans and most spectators who saw them unfold live through CNN etc. the majority of the writers and directors choose to show that tragedy is not an American monopoly. Should anybody be surprised that these 3000 deaths are given the same weight elsewhere as the West gives to thousands Tutsi, Tamil, Bosnian, Chilean, Kurdish (need we go on) victims. If this was a 'wake-up' call for the States then it is equally tragic that in the subsequent 12 months the Israel/Palestine impasse is further from a solution while George Bush Jnr. would rather wreak revenge than make the world a safer place. I think many of the contributors wonder where the idealism of the Founding Fathers went, and why America orignally built as a bastion of freedom, justice and tolerance now sees its self-interest paramount while the Third World wonders where the next drink, meal or bullet is coming from. | positive |
Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.<br /><br />I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".<br /><br />Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.<br /><br />It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".<br /><br />It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.<br /><br />A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them. | negative |
When I think Bollywood. I think of lite feel good musical dance numbers, with gorgeous outfits on the men and women. And catchy tunes. Horror, Thrillers, Mystery and Suspense, don't come to mind though. And this, to my Western eyes, is like an abstract comedy. <br /><br />I think it would have been a better movie, shorter even, if the writer and the director had made a definite choice. Either gone for outright Thriller-Horror, Comedy-Mystery, Supernatural-Suspense or Musical-Romance, instead of an awkward mixture of them all. <br /><br />I'll have to say more than once I thought the director must have seen "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and tried to give it a Bollywood twist. My first film was Bride & Prejudice. Which I thought was acted well. <br /><br />This seemed like what a Western Audience would consider a straight to video cheese fest.<br /><br />The acting was over the top, at times it felt like they were intentionally trying to parody western thrillers, but when you saw them try to inject the dramatic crying, screaming or fear, it felt out of place. <br /><br />The viewer was left wondering when one of the actors would wink at the camera. More than a few times when the audience was supposed to be horrified, we could only snicker a the absurdity. <br /><br />I watch a lot of foreign films, and even though I don't know Hindi, I have to say they did a poor job subtitling the film. Sometimes it was difficult to read the white lettering against the bright background. <br /><br />The villain was particularly amusing, at least to me, because he came with his own mood music. The supposed surprising twist, actually felt like a cop out.<br /><br />The lead couples were handsome/pretty enough, and the musical numbers made it worth my rental fee. I'd suggest it to someone as a musical- comedy, but I'd tell them to just fast forward the rest of the movie, because it wasn't worth the effort of reading. If you're determined to read a whole subtitled Hindi flick, then check out the superior Romantic Drama 'Namasteay, London'. <br /><br />But I was not scared..unless that's really what they think is horrifying in India. 1 out of 10 for what it's being touted as. 6 out of 10 for it's unintentional quickness & ability to illicit lots of laughs, and it's musical/dance numbers. Enjoy :) | negative |
It is a great movie. i sow that some people think that this might not be based on a true story. No matter this !!, the movie is great, and all u can think is not why a balloon with a mermaid on it ends up flying in the mermaid town and so on, instead thinking that "a little girl's wish came true", and this means that all our peaceful dreams will come true if we trust in us, and do all in this world to make them true. The little girl (Desi - in the movie), and her mom, were the best actors i've been seen in a long time. Good for they, for all actors, all for the director. If someone can tell them this, please tell them, "A 25 year guy from Romania says thank you for making this movie". | positive |
While I can understand some of the points made regarding the cinematography (I thought a more purposeful approach would have better supported the low-fi, home movie feel) I must say that I thought the script and acting of WHAT ALICE FOUND were excellent! Dean Bell has crafted a real gem that Judith Ivey charms with character-driven delight. Her performance of Sandra is a pleasure -- unfolding, alternately, as diabolical and romantic. We are at once intrigued and repulsed by her actions... and never given more information than is necessary. Her's and the supporting cast's efforts meet Bell's post-modern fairy tale with arms wide open. Emily Grace's Alice is infused with a doey-eyed magic. She seems to mold like clay before us, morphing into some sort of beautiful, lost beast. By the end, we are at odds with words, as she is, saying goodbye to her mother. Kudos also should be doled out to Jane Lincoln Taylor -- whose Mother provides the right amount of tragic historic weight -- and Justin Parkinson -- whose shy first-time John, Sam, provides one of the sweetest, if not most awkward, sex scenes in film. Bell has created a first rate story and assembled a plethora of talent to make it. | positive |
I don't know why people always want deeper meaning in movies or else consider them worthless.<br /><br />What about just being entertained? Something at which Morgan Freeman excels. He gets a chance to show off a bit. Paz Vega, his co-star, gets a career boost and Brad Silberling gets a name to draw people into watching his movie.<br /><br />I thought it was a good movie. Some humor, some pathos, some bittersweetness but nothing over the top. I got an especial kick out of Jim Parsons as the receptionist at a construction company. When he looks at Freeman adoringly and says, "You make me want to be a woman." He's just hilarious. The fight scene between Ms. Vega her ex-husband and his girlfriend is wonderful too.<br /><br />In short, it's a cute, charming film that will make you smile. You could do much, much worse. | positive |
I like all of the main actors involved in this quite bizarre film. Terrance Stamp, Guy Pearce & Hugo Weaving have all proved themselves as some of the best & most capable actors around, but I could not get into this. I don't know if it's because I don't understand the lifestyle or what, but I could not get my head around this film. Worse than anything is that the actors made some of the ugliest drag queens I've ever seen. I think that was part of the point, I don't know. I realize that is probably an insult, but I don't know what else to call them. I must say I bought the guys as the performers (the correct term?) but the story just wasn't very good or very interesting either. I will say that I can't usually appreciate costume designers very well, although I notice them when they are wrong or out of place, but I was very much impressed with these. Very creative to say the least, just not attractive, but I don't think they're supposed to be. I don't know I am definitely not the target audience and would never go see a performance done by these kind of performers, but I wouldn't go see ballet, or opera either so I don't know. If this is your kind of film then you will probably like it, but if it's not skip it because it is...well not for most of us. I just checked it won the Oscar for costume design & I will say rightfully so. I must say Ebert didn't care much for this film either, though he liked it better than I did. | negative |
OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do it. | negative |
Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting. | negative |
At first glance a film like Northfork, a town set to be flooded in 1955 and a group of 6 characters who are sent out to evacuate the remaining townspeople, could be just an ordinary film. As we soon meet a remaining priest taking care of a sick child, a greedy land owner, we could be set up for a simple story we could all easily digest. However, when one is first introduced to this film, you notice the amazing wide open cinematography and a scene involving a church hall missing a wall that opens up to the pastures and scenic view of the mountains with cattle grazing. It soon becomes clear that after this scene and a few of the towns peoples introduction, that this is no ordinary film and no ordinary story, it is something very special and unique.<br /><br />At first glance things are not as clear, but the cinematography and landscape that the viewer is witness to is stunning, and the characters that inhabit this small soon to be extinct area are just in word amazing. It's what can either draw you in closer to this qwerky film, or either have you bored sitting there waiting for something to happen.<br /><br />The films deep spiritual and dream like qualities, give it a slow and methodical approach which I am sure will bore some viewers, but if you are patient with it and see the bigger picture, the film is great to witness.<br /><br />Rating 8 out of 10 | positive |
This is the version that even the author hated, because it's so schmaltzy. They gave it a 'happy ending' and changed a lot of the dialogue, and it's just a big pile of saccharine. The 'stage manager' is quite good, I believe he originated the role, but everyone else falls into that acting style of the 40's that is really just posing. The one great feature- the music. This has one of the best scores ever recorded, and it's worth seeking out in a record shop. Overall I think the 1989 Spalding Grey/ Eric Stoltz/ Penelope Miller version is far superior. | negative |
OK I was bought this a few Xmas' ago by my brother in law, who took me to see "Get Shorty" in the cinema, which the both of use were "uber" impressed with. And watched both get shorty and be cool one after another. I have read reviews of people that had not seen get shorty and thought this film was quite good.... I just think its another way for film companies to cheat the paying customer. All I have to say about this film is WTF? After nearly 10 years and Chili Palmer had become a pussy.... The script was basically the same, they teamed up Travolta and Thurman after their success of Plup Fiction, threw in a couple of big stars(plus a shed load of nobodies) and thought that it was going to be good..... Vince Vaughn's character was just annoying, despite me being a fan of both him and the Rock both of the actors were way under utilised and unrealistic. Basically I am glad that this was bought for me as a present as if I had paid money for it I would have been super annoyed. | negative |
Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!! | negative |
The Guidelines state that a comment must contain a minimum of four lines. That is the only reason I am saying anything more about Tomcats. Because after all, my one line summary really says everything there is to say. There is absolutely NOTHING remotely entertaining in this film. | negative |
Wow... this is the kind of movie that makes you wonder who's idea this was and what soup kitchen are they eating at now. To say this was bad is an insult to the bad movies we all know and love.<br /><br />When I saw Guttenberg's name in the TV guide I figured it would be a spoof... maybe it should have been. Could have made for a better movie.<br /><br />Look for the scene where they are in an airplane in mid flight with the door open and there is no wind what so ever. They could have sprung for a fan at least.<br /><br />Look for several Canadian & c-list actors in the movie. This is the kind of movie that litters the b-rate cable stations you never watch except on a rainy Sunday. | negative |
I'm sure the film contains certain gaps in logic, but I was so enthralled by it that I really didn't care. The movie plays out like a fun, lighthearted teen romp combined with a Schwarzenegger-type action flick. It's packed with action, packed with excitement and has some humorous moments as well. Sean Astin is fun to watch, and I haven't seen Louis Gossett, Jr. since I saw "Diggstown" in theaters. He is a fine, underrated actor and I love watching him on screen. I just wonder what he's doing now. Unfortunately, he might be starring in a lot of those direct-to-video flicks. Hopefully, my assumption is wrong. Anyway, this is a fun, edge-of-your-seat thriller and I definitely suggest you check it out. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10) | positive |
Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is based on the classic book Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs and is a more faithful adaptation to the classic book, the film has some great scenery like the Jungles of South Africa to the Greystoke mansion, the acting is also great. Chirstopher Lambert did a great performance as Tarzan, it was also his first English speaking role. The film has some funny moments, sad moments and touching moments that makes this a real classic.<br /><br />The film sees a boat crashing in the Jungles of South Africa and some time later they have a son named John, the Apes go into the hut and one of them kills the Father. The Apes then take him to where they live and adopt him as one of their own, as the years go by John grows up and learns to be more like the Apes. In his teens his Foster Mom gets attacked by Native Hunters and soon killed by them, years later a group of people are going to Africa on a expedition. After setting up camp they're soon attacked by the Natives, most escape but Capitaine Phillippe D'Arnot is left behind injured by some of the arrows. After hiding he meets John now an adult who takes him to his home and takes care of his wounds, after a while Phillippe starts to teach John how to speak English and teach him that he's not one of the Apes but a person. When Phillippe goes to leave John goes with him, after sometime they arrive at Greystoke manor where the Sixth Earl of Greystoke is shown his long lost Grandson, John is shown his bedroom and picture of his true Mom and Dad. John also meets Jane Porter and slowly as they get to know each other he begins to have feelings for her, when it's Christmas the Sixth Earl of Greystoke slides down the stairs killing himself. John then starts to miss the Jungle and wants to return but Phillipe tells him to stay since everything they had done would be for nothing. John is then torn between his life as a Greystoke and the Lord of the Apes.<br /><br />Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes is a great classic that should be seen. 10/10 | positive |
This is one of those movies that was never publicized and therefore was missed when it originally played in the theaters.<br /><br />I came across it while switching TV channels and was immediately engrossed in this story of an aging rodeo bum whose recklessness and lack of responsibility hurt everyone around him. I've often wanted to see the movie again but couldn't even remember its name, and have never seen it in the rental stores.<br /><br />James Coburn and Slim Pickens were excellent in their roles, and the rodeo footage was first rate. While being an action movie and having a western setting and theme it could be enjoyed by anyone regardless of their taste in films. | positive |
For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).<br /><br />Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster. | negative |
Although this film looks like a Crime Thriller Noir, the plot is actually a bit simplistic and with very few surprise twists or turns at all - and those that do appear, are not exactly shockers.<br /><br />However, if you slip out of 'intense action thriller' mode and into 'mindless entertainment,' then this is really quite a fun movie, with several hilarious moments. Most of these can be attributed to the witty dialogue between Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson's characters - but that said, Sadie said it all in her hilarious opening greeting to Friedman, and it left very little else for anything else to develop between these two characters. I didn't find these esteemed british actors version of the southern accents that bad (Ok, Thompson sounded like she was rolling marbles in her mouth as she tried to spoke southern, but Rickman was surprisingly rather good with very few minor lapses into his customary english accent) - if you want to critique accents - lets discuss that of Coco - she only spoke southern periodically!<br /><br /> | positive |
Sure, it had some of the makings of a good film. The storyline is good, if a bit bland and the acting was good enough though I didn't understand why Olivia d'Abo had such a pronounced Australian accent if her character was supposed to have been raised in the US. My biggest problem, however, was with the wardrobe. I know as rule, the average American is considered a frumpy dresser by any self-respecting European but this was beyond that. Anna's colour combinations were positively ghastly!! And that potato sack-like, sad excuse for a coat she wore throughout the film made me break out in hives. I suppose the idea was to be as realistic as possible (how many school teachers walk around in Prada?) but simple doesn't mean an absolute lack of taste. A word to the wise... | negative |
an oirish film not made for an irish audience. with fiorentino, baxendale and spacey each incapabable of a half decent oirish accents the powers-that-be had but one choice - force the irish actors to adopt equally bad oirish accents, reducing the whole thing to the lowest common denominator. | negative |
If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a "thriller" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish "starting". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of "No Country for Old Men" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother. | negative |
The Box is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. To explain my experience, let me use this word picture: Imagine that you have been binging on pixie sticks and paint fumes for the last month while watching nothing but Twilight Zone reruns. The resulting coma lands you in a hospital, where the nurse seems to get a kick out of shooting adrenalin into your IV. The dream that you have while in the coma will be something like this movie.<br /><br />SUMMARY: A man shows up at the door of a couple. He gives them a box with a button on it. Press the button, they will get a million dollars in cash and a person they don't know will die. I'll try not to spoil anything, but from there things devolve into a plot so intertwined and complex and purely original that it will make you question your sanity. But hey, most of us have been sane for a while now, and change is good.<br /><br />PROS: Amazing storyline, overall good acting, not a slow moment once it gets going. It asks questions of human morality that are rarely, if ever asked in popular culture. This movie is deep, it has meaning. Its not summer blockbuster special effects fluff (not that there's anything wrong with that); this movie had a relatively low budget and it showed in some places. But i think it is perhaps that very thing that makes me like it so much.<br /><br />CONS: The first twenty minutes, before it gets going, are really quite slow. At the end of the movie, you will be so confused that you just have to sit down and think for a good half hour. I can guarantee that this movie will not get rave reviews from your peers or most critics; it is far too strange and there aren't explosions every three seconds. In fact there are no explosions of any kind in this movie (besides your brain popping from trying to understand exactly what the heck just happened). Personally I don't think this is a bad thing, but many will.<br /><br />RATING: Easily a 9/10. I have never had an experience like watching this movie. The only reason I can't give it a 10/10 is that it is just too wrapped up in itself. There are several large things left unexplained at the end that are still bugging me as I sit here writing this. But overall, this is the best experience I have had in a movie theater in quite a long time. But be warned, you will not like this movie if you can't sit back, turn on your suspension of disbelief to about 150%, and prepare your brain to do some impressive acrobatics.<br /><br />Visit www.thestuffblag.com for more reviews | positive |
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!<br /><br />This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.<br /><br />Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.<br /><br />I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities | negative |
I hired the DVD yesterday and first of all it started bad, it's 4:3 aspect ratio film, and it just keeps getting worse, the acting is so bad and the movie itself is way to predictable, I was like watching the movie and said to myself: this going to happen next and guess what happened? right...<br /><br />if you want to see a good action boxing movie, don't watch this one you'll end disappointed on this low-budget movie like I did. go and see Ali its way better! | negative |
This is a gory mess and pretty convincing. Corbin Bernson is very much in command of this movie with his slick portrayal of the loony control freak eponymous practitioner. Linda Hoffman plays his cheating wife and she is very easy on the eye - unfortunately for her, the little "tryst" with the pool guy brings severe punishment in a way the good doctor knows best - shame about that pretty smile! The last half hour of the movie is devoted to Bernson's character losing it completely and the spotlight falls on a young actress called Virginya Keehne. An extremely talented performer, she hogs the limelight from the moment the braces come off. Nice legs, too! | positive |
Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.<br /><br />This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.<br /><br />First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.<br /><br />So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...<br /><br />1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here). | negative |
This charmingly pleasant and tenderhearted sequel to the hugely successful "The Legend of Boggy Creek" is a follow-up in name only. Stories abound in a sleepy, self-contained fishing community of a supposedly vicious Bigfoot creature called "Big Bay Ty" that resides deep in the uninviting swamplands of Boggy Creek. Two bratty brothers and their older, more sensible tomboy sister (a sweetly feisty performance by cute, pigtailed future "Different Strokes" sitcom star Dana Plato) go venturing into the treacherous marsh to check out if the creature of local legend may be in fact a real live being. The trio get hopelessly lost in a fierce storm and the furry, bear-like, humongous, but very gentle and benevolent Sasquatch comes to the kids' rescue.<br /><br />Tom Moore's casual, no-frills direction relates this simple story at a leisurely pace, astutely capturing the workaday minutiae of the rural town in compellingly exact detail, drawing the assorted country characters with great warmth and affection, and thankfully developing the sentiment in an organic, restrained, unforced manner that never degenerates into sticky-sappy mush. The adorable Dawn Wells (Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island") gives an engagingly plucky portrayal of the kids' loving working class single mom while Jim Wilson and John Hofeus offer enjoyably irascible support as a couple of squabbling ol' hayseed curmudgeonly coots. Robert Bethard's capable, sunny cinematography displays the woodsy setting in all its sumptuously tranquil, achingly pure and fragile untouched by civilization splendor. Darrell Deck's score adeptly blends flesh-crawling synthesizer shudders and jubilant banjo-pluckin' country bluegrass into a tuneful sonic brew. In addition, this picture warrants special praise for the way it uncannily predicts the 90's kiddie feature Bigfoot vogue by a good 15-odd years in advance. | positive |
I found the film quite expressive , the way the main character was lost but at the same much more clear about certain things in life than people who mocked him ( his flatmate for example ) .<br /><br />he was tortured and you loved to watch him being tortured ! it had this perverted side which was frightening but we were all happy to see him come out of the misery again .<br /><br />it was like a game character or pan-man through a mine-land or to enemy and we love to watch him under sniper attack or fire but then at the end we are happy to see him survive ... <br /><br />. | positive |
Outrage is pretty good movie! Robert Culp was very good in the movie and was perfect for the part! Its hard to believe that this is a true story but what can you do? When I watched this I thought why do they have to do all of those things. It isn't right but they learned their lesson when they picked on the wrong man! Anyway if you ever see this movie on TV watch it because its a good one! | positive |
A totally pathetic attempt at movie about sacrifices of Australian Soldiers during the New Guinea Campaign. Total waste of money even if you only see it on DVD. Thankfully the video store provided a free weekly hire with the DVD else it would have been a complete waste of money. Probably made by arty types and full of the symbolism that today's Chardonay socialists seem so into. Frankly this movie is an insult to the memory of the brave chaps that never came back. Somebody please provide the funding to make a decent movie at least the equal of Saving Private Ryan. Hopefully the RSL will put as much distance between itself and this movie as possible. The story needs to be told from all sides the Australians, the locals & the Japanese - Although getting the latter to tell the truth about anything that happened during the second world war is highly unlikely. Basically its rubbish, don't see it, don't buy it. Walk away | negative |
Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. "Killer Tongue" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete "pond scum". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just "total nonsense". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK | negative |
I think "category 6: day of destruction" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon. <br /><br />The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her. <br /><br />The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on. <br /><br />The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!<br /><br />Please keep the special effects real.<br /><br />I liked the comment: "What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?"<br /><br />I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally boring. | negative |
Charming doesn't even begin to describe "Saving Grace;" it's absolutely irresistible! Anyone who ventures into this movie will leave with their spirits soaring high (haha).<br /><br />Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) has just lost her husband, but her problems are about to get a whole lot worse. Her dearly departed has left her with no money and outstanding debts. Faced with losing everything, she has to find out a way to get a lot of cash...fast! She gets an idea when her gardener, Matthew (Craig Ferguson) asks the town-famous horticulturist to give him advice on a plant he is secretly growing. Grace immediately realizes that his plant is marijuana, so they decide to use her gardening skills to grow a lot of top-quality weed, and then sell it to pay off her outstanding debts.<br /><br />The most notable quality about "Saving Grace" is its likability. Every character is extremely sympathetic, and, save for the first 20 or so minutes, the film is non-stop good cheer. Everyone wants a happy ending for everyone, even if it means turning a blind eye to some rather illegal activities.<br /><br />The acting is top-notch. Brenda Blethyn is one of Britain's finest actresses, and here is why. She turns what could have been a caricature into a fully living and breathing individual. She's a nice lady, but she's not stupid. Craig Ferguson is equally amiable as Matthew. He's a deadbeat loser, but he's so likable that it doesn't matter. The rest of the ensemble cast fits in this category as well, but special mention has to go to Tcheky Karyo. The French actor always has a aura of menace about him, and that suits him well, but he also has great comedy skills.<br /><br />Nigel Cole finds the perfect tone for "Saving Grace." It's all about the charm. One of the problems I have with British humor is that all the energy seems to be drained out of the film. Not so here. The film is thoroughly likable and always amusing. That's not to say that "Saving Grace" is just a likable movie that will leave you with a grin and a good feeling. While this movie is not an out and out comedy, it does boast two or three scenes that are nothing short of hysterical.<br /><br />If there's any problem with the film, it's that the climax is a little confusing. The questions are answered though, and the ending boasts an unexpected twist.<br /><br />See "Saving Grace," especially when you're having a bad day. | positive |
This movie tells the tender tale of a demented scientist who, after his fiance is decapitated, goes around ogling strippers so that he can find a suitable body to attach her noggin to. Everyone in this movie exudes more slime than a snail, particularly our protagonist. | negative |
This masterpiece of lesbian horror comes from exploitation master Joseph W.Sarno.It features plenty of soft core sex,really hot lesbian sequences plus a lot of naked women.The acting is pretty good and the film is quite atmospheric and well-made.Marie Forsa is one of the hottest chicks I have ever seen in a horror movie-it's a visual pleasure to see her wonderful body.Sarno really knows how to pick up hot looking ladies.A must see for fans of sexploitation! | positive |
This film is great. All the hi-tech machinery and technology is mind-boggling. It is packed with action, humour and not to mention, guys. You will want to see it again and again. Very very funny. Also, it has a very unique plot which is unpredictable. You wouldn't want to miss out on it. | positive |
Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder. | negative |
Not exactly a new story line, but this romantic comedy makes the concept work. A young man(John Cusack) and a drop dead gorgeous woman(Kate Beckinsale)keep meeting by chance and wonder if they are meant for each other. Although both are promised to others...oddly enough they still feel that their soul mate is out there somewhere. A little sappy in some places, but viva la love. Being a romantic I am almost obligated to be riveted. My favorite scene is where Cusack is on the ground and snow starts falling. The finale is almost too sweet, but most deserving. This is not one of Cusack's deeper roles, but who in the hell could not be smitten by Beckinsale. Notable support is provided by Jeremy Piven and Molly Shannon. John Corbett plays the worst role I've ever seen him in. On the other hand Eugene Levy is quirky and funny. Watch this with your soul mate. | negative |
Robin Williams is excellent in this movie and it is a pity the material is not enough of a match for him. This may work if you buy into the "U-S-A! Number One!" mentality but story wise nothing much happens. Quite a shame really since the movie is really trying to say something, and says it sincerely. It just doesn't pack enough emotional punch. | negative |
In my honest opinion, everyone should see this movie at least once. It really put things in perspective as I watched it. Though it was fictional, this movie is about something that could happen to your children.<br /><br />It shows how easily two kids can hide both their hatred for their school, and their plans to murder innocent students. This film would not have worked in any other format. They pulled off the hand-held camera, perfectly.<br /><br />It reminds us of April 20th, 1999, when Eric Harris, and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 students and then themselves. It also reminds us of the media storm that followed after. Everyone wanted to see the Rampart video and everyone wanted to see the Basement tapes.<br /><br />This movie is a fictional version of our dreams coming true. We get to see the kid behind the monster.<br /><br />The only bad thing about this movie, is that it did not do well on the market, and few people even know it existed. If it would have had a single preview on a single blockbuster movie, everyone would have gone to see what the big deal was about, Zero Day.<br /><br />I believe this is the best film adaptation of a school shooting of the few that have truly attempted it. The shooting itself only takes up about ten minutes of the hour and a half long film, because It mostly focuses on Cal and Andre, and what they did up to that point.<br /><br />If you have not yet seen this movie, go rent it, and watch it. I guarantee that when it is finished, you will be speechless. | positive |
I agree with another reviewer, this is such a shattering film, that will be tough to watch again soon, though for quality alone, it deserves repeated viewing. The complexity of the characters, the incredible cinematography and superb direction make this movie worth the emotional price of watching.<br /><br />There is one scene, of the two partisans dragging themselves through the snow to escape a patrol, that's perhaps, for sheer physicality, the most amazing performance I've ever seen. In fact, though not episodic -- the story flows -- this is a movie of memorable scenes. There's the passing of rations amongst the partisans, the snow scenes, the ruined farm scene, the encounters in the houses, the interrogation, the "basement" scene, the "ascent". All stand out like jewels in a necklace.<br /><br />For me, the religiosity isn't overt. Frankly, I don't think it would have been permitted in a Soviet film. I do see this as an existential parable about the value of life. Here is a tale where the hero -- and he is a true hero -- becomes the villain, and the weaker one becomes the stronger one. Is this a mystical process or one dictated by circumstances? There is a transfiguration, but does it come from within or without? You must see the movie to understand the issues, for they can't be discussed without giving away too much of the story. I can't say enough about the acting. It's hard for me to choose which of the leads is more affecting. I'm not familiar with Soviet film of the 70s and am not familiar with any of the actors, but they are all superb. I also note how director Larisa Shepitko uses children. They remind me of Giotto's child angels.<br /><br />There is a little muddling in the end. There is apparently a prior relationship between the soldier Sotnikov and the interrogator Portnov, but this is left dangling. And the final scene is a bit ambiguous. But compared to the total experience these are quibbles. This is a movie that will mark you for life. | positive |
Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner. <br /><br />Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos. <br /><br />There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet. | negative |
Deanna Durbin really did save Universal from bankruptcy and enabled it to remain a big studio. By the mid 30s most of the big directors that had been at Universal eg Milestone, Browning and Wyler had gone. Only James Whale remained but his prestigious horror films were behind him. Deanna and Judy Garland appeared in a short "Every Sunday" and initially Garland was suggested for the role of Penny in "Three Smart Girls". When Garland was unavailable Universal switched to Durbin. Initially she had been definitely a supporting player but her potential was so vivid that the script was rewritten to make her the star. Directed by Henry Koster the film had a European touch.<br /><br />The film starts with a beautiful panorama of a lake in "Switzerland". The "three smart girls" of the title - three sisters, Joan (Nan Grey), Kay (Barbara Read) and Penny (Deanna Durbin) are sailing with Penny giving her glorious voice to "My Heart is Singing". All is not too well on the home front - their father is planning to remarry a younger woman (Binnie Barnes) so the three girls with the help of their trusty nurse (Lucille Watson) decide to go to New York and reunite him with their mother. Lucille Watson is best remembered for her role as Robert Taylor's stern mother in "Waterloo Bridge" (1941).<br /><br />Donna is a gold-digger who, along with her scatty mother (Alice Brady), is determined to marry Judson Craig (Charles Winninger). For someone with no film experience Deanna is wonderful as Penny, a typical pesky, over enthusiastic kid sister and she is as pretty as a picture. When she sings "Someone to Care for Me" to her father you will just melt - what a glorious voice she had. She also has one of the funniest lines in the film. When her father consoles her with "I'll take you to the zoo tomorrow", she replies "Oh I can see enough monkeys around here"!!!<br /><br />With the help of Bill Evans (John King) they decide to hire a "count" (Mischa Auer)to romance Donna. They arrange to meet at a nightclub but due to a mix-up Lord Michael Stuart (Ray Milland) is mistaken for the count and Donna falls for him (she thinks he owns half of Australia!!!) The plan backfires as he falls for Kay and Donna wants to hasten her marriage to Judson.<br /><br />Penny decides to take matters into her own hands and runs away. She is taken to the local police station where she charms the cops with her rendition of "Il Bacio" (she is trying to convince them she is a young opera singer.) Everything ends happily with their mother (Nella Walker) sailing over to patch things up with their dad and in the meantime Donna makes the acquaintance of the phoney count (Mischa Auer) and sails off to Australia with him.<br /><br />Highly recommended. | positive |
Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon. | positive |
Stargate SG-1 is a spin off of sorts from the 1994 movie "Stargate." I am so glad that they decided to expand on the subject. The show gets it rolling from the very first episode, a retired Jack O'Neill has to go through the gate once more to meet with his old companion, Dr. Daniel Jackson. Through the first two episodes, we meet Samantha Carter, a very intelligent individual who lets no one walk over her, and there is Teal'c, a quiet, compassionate warrior who defies his false god and joins the team. <br /><br />The main bad guys are called the Gouald, they are parasites who can get inserted into one's brain, thus controlling them and doing evil deeds. Any Gouald who has a massive amount of power is often deemed as a "System Lord." The warriors behind the Gouald are called Jaffa, who house the parasitic Gouald in their bodies until the Gouald can get inserted in a person's brain.<br /><br />Through the episodes, we mostly get to see SG-1, the exploratory team comprised of Jack/Daniel/Teal'c/and Sam, go through the wormhole that instantly transports them to other planets (this device is called the Stargate) and they encounter new cultures or bad guys. Some episodes are on-world, meaning that they do not go through the Stargate once in the episode and rather deal with pressing issues on Earth.<br /><br />Through the years, you start to see a decline in the SG-1 team as close knit, and more character-building story lines. This, in turn means even more on-world episodes, which is perfectly understandable.<br /><br />My rating: 8.75/10----While most of this show is good, there are some instances of story lines not always getting wrapped up and less of an emphasis on gate travel these last few years. But still, top notch science fiction! | positive |
A savage, undisciplined lion has been put behind bars for a circus carnival. He suddenly notices a hole on the floor of his cell, then sticks his nose into this hole to snuff it. At first he thinks Bugs Bunny's home is belong to a camel; yet when he wakes Bugs up from his sleep hoisting him up to the ground, there he meets with Bugs, his next trainer. <br /><br />If you ever wonder how Bugs would turn a savage lion into a Hawaiian hula dancer with traditional skirts on, you should watch this cartoon. Director Bob McKimson offers endless laughters by means of absurd and unexpected demonstrative humour. <br /><br />The signature scenes include:<br /><br />1/ the look of Bugs Bunny's home, cross-referencing to Donald Duck with the B.B. name acronym on the headboard of Bugs's bed <br /><br />2/ Bugs Bunny's short journey with the mine hoist climbing up to the ground floor <br /><br />3/ When Nero the Lion calls his friend the Elephant for help, Bugs uses a toy mouse to scare the Elephant; since the Elephant needed a broom to outpower that toy mouse, he uses Nero as a broom! <br /><br />4/ Bugs becoming a clown with the proper costume and make-up and the practical clown jokes that he makes <br /><br />5/ the trapeze scene while Nero chasing after Bugs <br /><br />6/ the famous Human Cannonball scene after which Nero the Lion starts dancing Hawaiian Hula<br /><br />The magic moments which keep Acrobatty Bunny fresh at all times in our memory:<br /><br />1/ When Bugs comes out of his bunny hole, he thinks he's in the Pinocchio tale; and starts acting to save Pinocchio out of the giant whale's stomach <br /><br />2/ When the Lion roars to scare him, Bugs replies back to him with roaring<br /><br />3/ Bugs arguing with the Lion for he's making so much noise, then finding a piece of wood to rub it against the iron bars while singing in order to make more noise than him <br /><br />4/ Wearing rubber heels at the circus, Bugs starts to bounce like toy rabbits and causes Nero to bounce! <br /><br />Those are the 10 main reasons that keeps Acrobatty Bunny as a Bugs Bunny classic and can be found in the "Bugs Bunny Classics' MGM/UA Video (1989)" | 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.